Oral
Answers to
Questions

Women and Equalities

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

Kinship Care

Munira Wilson: If she will make an assessment with Cabinet colleagues of the potential impact of the Government’s kinship care policies on carers and children with protected characteristics.

David Johnston: We comply with the public sector equality duty in considering how our policy decisions impact on individuals with protected characteristics, and we have complied with that obligation in drafting and developing the kinship strategy.

Munira Wilson: The annual survey of the Kinship charity showed that the majority of kinship carers are women, typically grandmothers, many of whom are affected by the gender pay gap and a rising retirement age, yet they are often forced to give up or reduce work to take on kinship care responsibilities. What progress has the Minister made with the Department for Business and Trade in finally securing paid leave for kinship carers so that they are not forced out of the labour force?

David Johnston: As the hon. Lady knows, we are committed to publishing the first ever strategy for kinship carers before the end of the year. She will not have long to wait.

Disabled People: Inequality

Cat Smith: What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to tackle inequality for disabled people.

Emma Lewell-Buck: What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to tackle inequality for disabled people.

Mims Davies: In July 2021, the Government set out our long-term vision in the national disability strategy. Over the summer, we consulted on the disability action plan, which will set out the immediate action that the Government are taking in 2024. Together with other relevant reforms being taken forward by my Cabinet colleagues, those measures seek to tackle inequality and improve the daily lives of disabled people.

Cat Smith: The neuro drop-in centre in Lancaster provides a unique support network for those affected by neurological conditions, but my constituent, who travels there by bus from Bowerham to Torrisholme, is a wheelchair user, and if there is already is a wheelchair user on the bus, he cannot board. Does the Minister think that that is fair?

Mims Davies: That does not sound terribly fair at all. I am very interested in what the hon. Lady shares with the House. Of course, we have a Transport Minister answering questions today, so I am very happy for us to look at that issue for her. If she writes to me, I will see that the matter is looked at.

Emma Lewell-Buck: Sense has found that, because of the Tory cost of living crisis, a large proportion of disabled people will not be seeing family, buying presents or even celebrating Christmas this year, yet the Government are ploughing ahead with changes that will ramp up sanctions and that could remove NHS prescriptions and access to legal aid for disabled people. Why, at every single opportunity, do the Government hit people with disabilities the hardest?

Mims Davies: I apologise, Mr Speaker, because the Transport Minister I mentioned is not coming today—they might be on the bus. I will pick up the issue raised by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) in further responses.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) will know that we are making cost of living payments once again to support people in need. In fact, that support totals over £104 billion. If she is concerned for her constituents—and rightly so—she should definitely direct them to Help for Households, the benefits calculator on gov.uk, and the help to claim process. There is also the household support fund, which is about £1 billion this year. I hope she is satisfied that we are absolutely supporting the most vulnerable.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Ashley Dalton: The disability pay gap has risen under the Conservatives from 11.7% in 2014 to 13.8% in 2021. Labour will act to close the gap and to support disabled people by introducing disability pay gap reporting for large employers. That is good for disabled people, good for business and good for our economy, so why will the Government not follow suit?

Mims Davies: We are absolutely committed to supporting disabled people. Frankly, we are very proud of our record: we have supported more than 1 million disabled people into work, hitting the target five years early, and we are rewiring our benefits system to give a renewed focus on what people can do rather than what they cannot, so that there are opportunities for people to improve their lives and get the pay that they want through their employment.

Ashley Dalton: Disabled people are also being hit hard by the Conservative cost of living crisis that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) referred to. On average, the extra cost of disability is equivalent to 63% of household income before housing costs. I would ask the Minister what discussions she has had with the Minister for disabled people about this important issue, but there is no Minister for disabled people. Will she tell the House when one will be appointed?

Mims Davies: I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. As she has rightly said, we should all aim to reduce the disability employment gap, and that remains our goal. To answer her question, I am the lead on those matters for Equalities oral questions. I am disappointed that I am not enough for her today, but I do lead on those matters for the Department. All Department for Work and Pensions Ministers take responsibility across our portfolios for removing barriers to progress, and updates to ministerial appointments will be made under the usual process.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

Caroline Nokes: I reassure my hon. Friend that she is more than enough for me. There was a really worrying article in The Times a few days ago that talked about the invisibility of disabled people when making employment applications. We know that disabled people are less likely to be in work and to take up opportunities for entrepreneurship. Perhaps my hon. Friend could highlight the important work she is doing as the Minister for social mobility to make sure that across Government, there is a real drive to help disabled people get the best opportunities to work.

Mims Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members for their interest in this area. As the Minister responsible for social mobility, I am taking direct leadership on access to employment, particularly in respect of applications and recruitment that suit disabled people to get into work, because if we do not get them into work, they cannot progress. That is why we have billions of pounds in our back to work plan, and why we are supporting vulnerable people by uprating benefits by 6.7% in April equally.

Disability Action Plan

Philip Hollobone: What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the effectiveness of the disability action plan.

Mims Davies: The disability action plan’s accessible 12-week consultation closed on 6 October. Since then, officials have been carefully considering all the consultation responses and working closely with other Government Departments. We have led discussions with the cross-Government ministerial disability champions before we publish the final disability action plan.

Philip Hollobone: Some 14 million people live with a disability. They are statistically less likely to have a job or any qualifications or to own their own home, and sadly, their children are twice as likely to become victims of crime. Will the Minister ensure that the disability action plan addresses all those issues?

Mims Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for his typical care in this area. I assure him and the House that significant work is taking place across Government in those areas where disabled people have told us that their outcomes must be a priority, whether that is in education, employment or care. We are focused on that, and the disability action plan will complement that work. We  are using the insight from the 12-week consultation to deliver improvements in all the areas that matter most to disabled people, in order to improve their daily lives.

Chris Bryant: Some 1.4 million people in the UK are living with a brain injury. Will the Minister make sure that the final version of the plan lays out precisely what the Government intend to do in relation to people who have had a brain injury? The good news is that with really good neurorehabilitation, people can be given back not just their life, but a real quality of life. We owe that to them, don’t we?

Mims Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. My father lived with a brain injury for over 25 years, and my annual Christmas card this year comes from Headway Sussex through its art therapy work, so I assure him that at the DWP, I think about the impacts of brain injury on a daily basis.

Gender-based Violence: Hamas

Bob Blackman: If she will have discussions with the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs on the Government’s response to reports of gender-based violence by Hamas since 7 October 2023.

Kemi Badenoch: It is crucial that the international community recognises the atrocities committed by Hamas, and that Hamas are held to account for their barbarism. That is why we are engaging with partners, including the UN, to ensure that perpetrators are held to account for their depravity.
The UK remains a global leader in eradicating sex-based violence. Our preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative has £60 million in funding to combat conflict-related sexual violence and ensure that survivors access redress and support. On 28 November, we announced a further £33 million to support grassroots women’s rights organisations tackling sex-based violence.

Bob Blackman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Hostages who have been released have reported Hamas atrocities, such as being subjected to physical and sexual violence in captivity. The Israeli health service also reports that hostages have been drugged to make them look happy on videos. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning Hamas for doing that and in demanding that the International Committee of the Red Cross has access to every single one of the hostages immediately?

Kemi Badenoch: I share my hon. Friend’s horror. It is extremely distressing to hear all those reports, and I do unequivocally condemn the sexual violence that is being reported. We continue to engage regularly with partners, including the UN. I will pick up the points that he raised directly with the Foreign Office to see whether we can do what he asks. It does sound like something that needs the involvement of the Red Cross, but we will make sure that we co-ordinate across Government for a dedicated response on this issue.

Sharon Hodgson: Will the UK use its seat on the UN Human Rights Council to raise the use of gender-based violence  on 7 October, and to secure a clear condemnation from its members of the rape, murder and torture perpetrated against women by Hamas on 7 October?

Kemi Badenoch: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Yes, we will. We have raised the reports of sexual violence attacks on 7 October with UN Women and with the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict. I will make sure that we continue to do this and to impress upon international organisations that the whole world needs to respond to this.

Artificial Intelligence Biases: Protected Characteristics

Patrick Grady: What recent discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential for biases in artificial intelligence technologies in relation to people with protected characteristics.

Saqib Bhatti: We are having cross-governmental discussions about AI, and we are very clear that AI systems should not undermine people’s rights or discriminate unfairly. This was a key topic of discussion at the AI safety summit, and it remains a priority for the Government. Fairness is a core principle of our AI regulatory framework, and UK regulators are already taking action to address AI-related bias and discrimination.

Patrick Grady: In that case, is the Minister aware of the findings of the Institute for the Future of Work that the use of artificial intelligence
“presents risks to equality, potentially embedding bias and discrimination”,
and that auditing AI tools used in recruitment
“are often inadequate in ensuring compliance with UK Equality Law, good governance and best practice”?
What steps are being taken across the whole of Government to ensure that appropriate assessments are made of the equalities impact of the use of AI in the workplace?

Saqib Bhatti: That is exactly why we had the AI safety summit, at which more than 28 countries plus the EU signed up to the Bletchley declaration. In March, we published the AI regulation White Paper, which set out our first steps towards establishing a regulatory framework for AI. I repeat that AI systems should not undermine people’s rights or discriminate unfairly, and that is one of the core principles set out in the White Paper.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Kirsten Oswald: The risk of perpetuating inequality and the problems that arise from solely automated decision making are well accepted both in recruitment and, as we heard earlier, in the challenges for disabled people in accessing employment, but also in other contexts such as immigration and welfare benefits. However, the UK Government’s Data Protection and Digital Information Bill is liberalising the use of artificial intelligence in decision making and reducing the rights of people to appeal those decisions. Does the Minister understand that it is increasingly important to make sure that we mitigate risks such as encoded bias? What is the specific plan to do that?

Saqib Bhatti: I do not recognise the hon. Member’s assessment, but let me say this: context matters. The risks of bias will vary depending on the specific way in which AI is used. That is why we are letting the regulators describe and illustrate what fairness means within their sectors, because they will be able to apply greater context to their discussions. The risk of discrimination should be assessed in context, and guidance should be issued that is specific to the sector. That is why we are preparing and publishing guidance to support the regulators. We will then encourage and support them to develop joint guidance. We will be working with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate.

Socioeconomic Equality

Paul Howell: What steps the Government are taking to help ensure socioeconomic equality.

Ian Levy: What steps the Government are taking to help ensure socioeconomic equality.

Kemi Badenoch: The Government are committed to boosting economic growth across the UK and ensuring opportunity is spread as widely as possible. Education is the most significant lever to create opportunity and reduce inequality, and I am pleased that Conservative reforms have seen children in schools in England excel in the 2022 PISA—programme for international student assessment—scores. England significantly outperformed the average, rising from 27th for mathematics in 2009 to 11th this year, and from 25th for reading in 2009 to 13th this year.

Paul Howell: When it comes to economic equality, physical mobility is critical. As the Minister may know, I am joint chair of the all-party parliamentary group for “left behind” neighbourhoods, and our recent report talked about how limited public transport connectivity frustrates access to education and employment. I have constituents in places such as Trimdon and Fishburn who cannot get to the 10,000 jobs in Aycliffe, which is only 10 miles away. Does the Minister agree it is imperative that when funding for local transport is determined, the opportunity to enhance social mobility is seen as critical?

Kemi Badenoch: I agree with my hon. Friend, who raises an important point about how connectivity creates access and generates social mobility. The Department for Transport is working to put the needs of current and potential users at the heart of the operation of the transport system, and Network North, our new £36 billion plan, will improve our country’s transport. Perhaps my hon. Friend will write to me about the specific issues, because some of those duties will fall to his local council and I want to know what it is doing with the money we are giving it to improve access.

Ian Levy: This Conservative Government have done more for the people of Blyth Valley than any other Government—[Laughter.] And they have brought much needed investment in employment opportunities for my constituents—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Please, I cannot hear the question. Obviously there must have been something funny, but I didn’t hear it.

Ian Levy: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Conservative Government have done more for the people of Blyth Valley than any other Government and have brought much needed investment in employment opportunities for my constituents, following decades of Labour neglect. Will my right hon. Friend please assure me that continuing to close the gap between the north and the south remains the Government’s highest priority?

Kemi Badenoch: I am delighted to assure my hon. Friend of that. He is an effective advocate for his constituency, and he knows that this Government have been investing in Blyth Valley. We have given an £18 million boost to regenerate housing, £1.5 million for new high-tech training equipment, £200,000 for extended CCTV provision, and a further £20 million for our long-term plan for towns. Our investment in Blyth shows that only the Conservatives can deliver there, and levelling up and closing the gap is a priority for this Government.

Chi Onwurah: Some 42% of children in Newcastle upon Tyne Central are growing up in poverty, 17% of households are in fuel poverty, and a fifth of adults are estimated to be in problematic debt. Does the Minister agree that a Government who cannot deliver economic prosperity for working people in the north-east are a Government who cannot deliver on socioeconomic equality?

Kemi Badenoch: This Government are delivering. Of course we recognise that there are people who are in need, and that is why we are doing everything, across all Departments, to deliver for them. For example, our supporting families programme has funded local areas to help almost 600,000 families with multiple and complex needs to make significant positive changes to their lives. The programme is working, and evaluation found that the proportion of children on the programme going into care reduced by a third and the number of adults receiving custodial sentences decreased by a quarter. There is so much we can say—I know we are running out of time, Mr Speaker, so perhaps the hon. Lady would like me to write to her.

Jamie Stone: One thing that can militate against socioeconomic equality, particularly for the elderly and most vulnerable, is access to care staff. The rate of remuneration is 61p per mile, going down to 25p per mile after the first 3,500 miles, and those figures have not been revised upwards since 2011. It means that wonderful people in my constituency are very often losing money travelling about, and that does not do much for recruitment either. Will the Minister agree to talk to the Treasury and the Scottish Government about doing something about that?

Kemi Badenoch: I am sure that colleagues in the appropriate Department will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s question and will be able to provide a more detailed response.

Topical Questions

Steven Bonnar: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Kemi Badenoch: In my last topical statement, I spoke about the unacceptable rise in antisemitism and hostility towards the Jewish community since 7 October, and I am updating the House on what further action I can take to promote social cohesion. The Equality Act 2010 is a shield against discrimination, and the public sector equality duty is part of that shield. It is particularly important that all public authorities take the duty seriously. To ensure that they understand how to comply with the duty, I will be publishing updated guidance shortly. I will then write to leaders of public authorities that have a key role in promoting social cohesion, to show how they can foster good relations, promote equality of opportunity and eliminate unlawful discrimination.

Steven Bonnar: I thank the Minister for that answer. As the Women’s Budget Group has rightly pointed out, women are more reliant on benefits, due to care-giving roles, and they have been disproportionately impacted by regressive social security changes since 2010. What consideration has the Minister given to the abolition of the poverty-inducing benefit cap and the hated two-child limit, to prevent further poverty and destitution among women and children, and will she raise that matter with her Cabinet colleagues?

Kemi Badenoch: The hon. Gentleman will know that we disagree with the propositions that he has set out, and we have said so time and again at this Dispatch Box. We believe that the two-child policy is important. We know that there is a cost of living crisis caused by rising energy costs and the war in Ukraine, which was caused by Russia. The Government are doing everything we can to limit the impact on households.

Philip Hollobone: A Museum of London report has bizarrely concluded that black people were more likely to die from medieval plague. Will the Minister for Women and Equalities ensure that such sensationalist research findings and woke archaeology have no impact at all on current health and pandemic policy?

Kemi Badenoch: I do agree. I am not even sure whether we can call it just sensationalist or woke. The research apparently was based on phrenology, which is a completely discredited type of science. I agree with my hon. Friend that this type of research is damaging to trust, to social cohesion and even to trust in health services. I have written to the director of the Museum of London to express my concern.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Opposition spokesperson.

Abena Oppong-Asare: In 2020, women’s life expectancy in the poorest parts of the UK was almost 19 years shorter than those in the most affluent. Thirteen years ago, Labour introduced a socioeconomic duty in the Equality Act 2010 to make the NHS and other public bodies tackle this gap. Why have Ministers failed to implement it?

Kemi Badenoch: The hon. Lady is right that the socioeconomic duty she references is not commenced in England. It is in Scotland, however, and the figures are worse there, which shows that the duty is not the solution to the problems she raises.

Selaine Saxby: My North Devon constituency is in the lower quartile for social mobility. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to improve social mobility outcomes for remote, rural and coastal communities?

Stuart Andrew: I agree with my hon. Friend that the circumstances of a person’s birth or where they live should not be a barrier to social mobility. That is why we have established things such as the Social Mobility Pledge consortium with businesses, and 120 have signed up. There are 12 community renewal fund projects serving her constituency and the wider area, and £1.2 million from the shared prosperity fund to achieve those aims.

Rachel Hopkins: The Etherton review was published five months ago, and we are due to have a statement later today. May I seek assurances from the Minister that the Department will work with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that its recommendations are published at pace?

Stuart Andrew: I completely agree with the hon. Lady. It was a very important review, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made an apology at the Dispatch Box. There will be a statement later, and I suggest that she asks the Defence Minister a question at that point.

Richard Fuller: Every year, 800 women pass through immigration detention, including centres such as Yarl’s Wood in my constituency. Many of those women have been trafficked or are victims of sexual abuse. I am working with a group, Women for Refugee Women, to provide a snapshot of the backgrounds of these women. Will the Minister agree to meet us to analyse the results of their findings?

Laura Farris: I would of course be happy to meet my hon. Friend. Women who have survived trafficking or sexual abuse are detained only when the evidence of vulnerability in their individual case is outweighed by immigration removal considerations. Victims of torture have their case considered by a single specialist team, autonomous of general caseworkers, and victims of modern slavery undergo a needs assessment to identify recovery needs.

Mohammad Yasin: Gender bias plays a key role in the misdiagnosis and under-diagnosis of conditions such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism in women and girls. What action are the Government taking to ensure that every girl with special educational needs receives support from their school or college, as she is entitled to by law?

Maria Caulfield: We are working with more than 42 integrated care boards across the country to improve the timelines for diagnosis of autism and ADHD. Some ICBs are doing particularly well, but others need a lot more help and support.

Theresa Villiers: Many people with impaired mobility conditions depend on their cars for the freedom to live the lives they want to lead. Will the Government therefore crack down on Labour’s anti-car policies in local government, such as the expansion of the ultra low emission zone and low-traffic networks and the building over of station car parks?

Maria Caulfield: This Government are clear in our condemnation of Labour’s attack on motorists, whether it is in London or Wales. That is why, in the summer,  the Prime Minister ordered a review of low-traffic neighbourhoods, which are making some parts of London inaccessible for disabled people, whether they are using public transport or cars.

Kenny MacAskill: Keep Prisons Single Sex has disclosed that police forces are still failing to adequately record the sex of offenders at birth and sometimes record self-identification. This can have a considerable effect on criminal justice data. Will the Minister take any steps to ensure that the correct data is given, so that appropriate analysis can be given and we do not have skewed information?

Kemi Badenoch: That is something that my Department is working on. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to ensure that data is accurate, that people understand what is being recorded and that this does not have an impact on how public services are delivered. If he has any further information that he would like to share, I would very much like to see if there are specific constituency circumstances we can look into.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mike Kane: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 13 December.

Rishi Sunak: Mr Speaker, as this is the last Prime Minister’s questions before recess, I know that the whole House will want to join me in wishing you and all the House staff a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. I know that Members will also want to join me in sending our warmest wishes to our armed forces based at home and stationed overseas, our emergency services and all those who will be working over Christmas too. Finally, I know that everyone will want to join me in wishing Mark Drakeford all the best as he moves on from his many, many years of devoted public service.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Mike Kane: May I concur with the Prime Minister’s comments about our armed forces, Christmas and Mark Drakeford?
My constituent Fred Bates is 74, he has liver cancer and he is a victim of the contaminated blood products scandal. The Prime Minister had a chance to do right by Fred last week, but he failed to do so and lost the vote in this House. After half a century, Fred wishes to know when he and fellow survivors will be compensated and get justice.

Rishi Sunak: This was an appalling tragedy, and my thoughts remain with all those concerned. I absolutely understand the strength of feeling on this. It was this Government who set up the inquiry, which I participated in, and we fully understand the need for action. The Government, crucially, have already accepted the moral case for compensation and acknowledged that justice needs to be delivered for the victims. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office will update the House on our next steps on the infected blood inquiry shortly.

Greg Smith: The tax cuts in the autumn statement were extremely welcome, but in order to go further and get the tax burden as low as possible, accurate and robust economic modelling is required. The Office for Budget Responsibility has been habitually wrong, and we had the spectacle last week of the head of the OBR saying that his latest forecast might be £30 billion out. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister commit to finding a better system of financial modelling, so that we can get taxes lower?

Rishi Sunak: As my hon. Friend knows, the OBR has brought greater transparency and independence to the forecasting on which Government policy is based, but he is right. It is required to produce an assessment of the accuracy of its fiscal and economic forecasts at least once a year but, crucially, as he acknowledged, thanks to our management of the economy and the fact that we have halved inflation and controlled borrowing, we have now delivered the largest tax cuts in a generation, and they will benefit families up and down the country from January.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the Leader of the Opposition.

Keir Starmer: Yesterday we heard of the tragic death of a young man on the Bibby Stockholm. I know that the whole House will want to send our deepest condolences to his family and friends. We must never let this happen again.
I would also like to mark the retirement of my colleague and friend Mark Drakeford, the First Minister of Wales. Mark committed his life to public service and lives his values every day. Quietly and patiently, Mark has been a titan of Labour and Welsh politics. We thank him for his service and wish him well.
Christmas is a time of peace on earth and good will to all—has anyone told the Tory party?

Rishi Sunak: Well, Christmas is also a time for families, and under the Conservatives we do have a record number of them. At the beginning of the year, I set out some priorities that this Government would deliver for the British people, and over the course of the year we have inflation halved, the economy growing, debt falling, action on the longest waiters, the boats down by a third and, crucially, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), tax cuts coming to help working families in the new year.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister can spin it all he likes, but the whole country can see that, yet again, the Tory party is in meltdown and everyone else is paying the price. He has kicked the can down the road, but in  the last week his MPs have said of him that he is “not capable enough”, he is “inexperienced”, he is “arrogant”, and he is “a really bad politician”—[Interruption.] Government Members are shouting, but this is what they said. Come on: who was it who said he is “a really bad politician”? Hands up. [Interruption.] They are shouting. Well, what about “inexperienced”—who was that? Or—there have to be some hands for this—“he’s got to go”? [Interruption.] They are shy.
Apparently, the Prime Minister is holding a Christmas party next week—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. It is Christmas—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]—but you might not want the Christmas present that I could give you.

Keir Starmer: Apparently, the Prime Minister is holding a Christmas party next week. How is the invite list looking?

Rishi Sunak: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for all the comments, but he should hear what they have to say about him. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Do you want to be the first one? It is Christmas, and I am going to hear this. My constituents are going to have a Christmas like everyone else, and they want to know whether their Christmas is going to be affected, so I want less of it from all sides.

Keir Starmer: Government Members have obviously found the donkey for their nativity—the search for three wise men might take a little longer. While they fight among themselves, there is a country out here that is not being governed, where more than 100,000 people are paying hundreds more a month on their mortgages. Energy bills are going back up in January. The economy is shrinking again. NHS waiting lists are at an all-time high. Does the Prime Minister not think that the Government would be better off fixing the messes they have already made, rather than scrambling to create new ones?

Rishi Sunak: The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about governing, but he spent his first two questions talking about political tittle-tattle. What a joke. Let us get on to the substance. He mentioned those things. What is the news we have just heard in the last week? What is the most important thing? The most important thing is education, because that is how we spread opportunity in our country. What have we learned? Where are the schools performing best in the United Kingdom? It is in England. Thanks to the reforms of this Conservative Government, they are rising up the league tables, giving our kids the start they need. Where are they plummeting? It is in Labour-run Wales.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister talks about children. Nearly 140,000 children are going to be homeless this Christmas—more than ever before. That is a shocking state of affairs, and it should shame the Government. Instead of more social housing, house building is set to collapse. Instead of banning no-fault evictions, thousands of families are at risk of homelessness. Rather than indulging his Back Benchers swanning around in their  factions and their “star chambers” pretending to be members of the mafia, when will he get a grip and focus on the country?

Rishi Sunak: Let us just look at the facts. Rough sleeping in this country is down by 35% since its peak, thanks to the efforts of this Government. There are hundreds of thousands fewer children in poverty today, thanks to this Government. And when it comes to home building, again what did we do? We have had the data just this last week: in the last year an almost record number of new homes were delivered, more than in any year under the last Labour Government.

Keir Starmer: One hundred and forty thousand children homeless this Christmas and the Prime Minister is utterly tone deaf. The rise in homelessness shows how these Tory crises merge and grow and damage the country; families like the Bradys in Wiltshire, both parents working full time with two young children forced out of their home of 15 years by a no-fault eviction, now living in their van. Or 11-year-old Liam Walker, homeless this Christmas. He wrote a letter to Santa saying, “Please can I have a forever home? I don’t want any new toys, I just want all my old toys out of storage. I just want us to be happy again.” If there is anything that could shame this Government into putting the country first, then it is surely this little boy.

Rishi Sunak: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman really cared about building homes—[Interruption.] No, if he really cared about building homes—when there was an opportunity in this House to back our plans to reform defective EU laws to unlock 100,000 new homes, what did he do? He went in front of the cameras and said one thing, and then he came in here and blocked it—typical shameless opportunism.

Keir Starmer: Is that really the Prime Minister’s Christmas message to Liam? Cocooned in his party management breakfast, he just cannot see the—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Cleverly, please. It is Christmas. I want a little bit of silence, and I am going to get it one way or another. That applies to each side.

Keir Starmer: Cocooned in his party management breakfast, the Prime Minister just cannot see the country in front of him and what they have done.
I will finish by thanking hard-working families across Britain who kept our country going. It has been an impossibly difficult year for so many. I want to pay special tribute to our key workers, particularly those in emergency services and those serving abroad in our forces who, even at this time of year, are doing the vital work of protecting their country. I wish everyone, including Members on the Conservative Benches, a very happy and peaceful new year. Will the Prime Minister join me?

Rishi Sunak: I think the right hon and learned Gentleman missed that I paid tribute to our emergency workers at the beginning of the session. But let us see, because I think it is important. He talked about working families. Of course I want to make sure that we support working families, and that is what we are actually delivering. All he has to offer them is borrowing £28 billion a year. All that will do is push up their mortgage rates  and push up their taxes. Meanwhile, what have we done? We have delivered tax cuts for millions of working families, boosted the national living wage, recruited 50,000 more nurses and 20,000 more police officers, improved our schools, cut the cost of net zero for working families, cut the boat crossings by a third and halved inflation. That is the difference: we are getting on and delivering for working Britain.

Stephen Hammond: As the world struggles to agree the future of the 1.5° commitment, in Wimbledon we are keen to do our bit. To help my campaign to make electric vehicle charging access more widespread, can I ask my right hon. Friend for two early Christmas presents? Will he speak to our right hon. Friend the Chancellor to ask him to look again at the unfair differential rates of VAT on public and private charging points? Will he ask our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to look at the byelaws that stop local councils making on-street parking and charging more accessible?

Rishi Sunak: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the Chancellor has already authorised more than £2 billion of investment to support our transition to zero-emission vehicles, and that we are well on track to reach our target of 300,000 charge points by 2030. I can also tell him that we will consult on amending the national planning policy framework to ensure that it prioritises the roll-out of charge points, on top the funding of almost £400 million to support local authorities to spread them out so that all our families have access to them when they need it.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Scottish National party leader.

Stephen Flynn: Will the Prime Minister please share his Christmas message for children being bombed in Gaza this winter?

Rishi Sunak: Nobody wants to see this conflict go on for a moment longer than necessary. We urgently need more humanitarian pauses to get all the hostages out, and to get life-saving aid into Gaza to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people. We have been consistent in supporting a sustainable ceasefire, which means that Hamas must stop launching rockets into Israel and release all the hostages.

Stephen Flynn: If the current actions of the Israeli Government continue, it is estimated that almost 1,400 more children will die between now and Christmas day. In the United Nations last night, our friends and allies in France, Ireland, Canada, Spain and Australia joined 148 other nations to vote with courage, care and compassion for a ceasefire. The UK shamefully abstained. How can the Prime Minister possibly explain why 153 nations are wrong, yet Westminster is right?

Rishi Sunak: As I have said consistently, we are deeply concerned about the devastating impact of the fighting in Gaza on the civilian population. Too many people have lost their lives already. That is something that we have stressed, and something that I stressed personally to Prime Minister Netanyahu just last week. What we are doing practically is to get more aid into  Gaza, and the Foreign Secretary is appointing a UK humanitarian co-ordinator. In my conversations last week with Prime Minister Netanyahu, I pressed him on opening up the Kerem Shalom crossing so that more aid can flow in, and we are actively exploring the opportunity for maritime corridors, something on which the UK is well placed to lead. I can give the hon. Gentleman my assurance that we will work night and day to get more aid to those who desperately need it.

Neil Hudson: We expect our young folk to remain in education or training until they are 18, but many lack transport to get there. Along with the amazing headteacher of Alston Moor Federation, Gill Jackson, I secured funding from the council to get her students to college, and pressed the council for a half-a-million-pound bursary scheme to extend youth travel more widely. But we should not have to do this. To secure equality of opportunity and true levelling up, will the Prime Minister look to mandate and support councils to provide post-16 transport, so that all our young people in towns, cities and rural areas can reach their next stage in life?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend and the headteacher of Alston Moor Federation, Gill Jackson, have done a fantastic job in securing more funding. I wish her well for what I believe is her upcoming retirement.
As my hon. Friend knows, our school travel policy ensures that no child is prevented from accessing education by a lack of transport. Not only do we have home-to-school travel policies, but the 16 to 19 bursary fund can be used to support young people with transport costs, and, more generally, we are taking action to keep bus fares capped at £2. However, I will happily ensure that my hon. Friend secures a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss his proposals further.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The Prime Minister will be aware of Unionist concerns about the need to remove the Irish sea border created by the protocol, which disrupts the UK’s internal market. Will he bring forward legislation to amend the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, and both guarantee and future-proof Northern Ireland’s unfettered access to the UK’s internal market in all scenarios?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my right hon. Friend. I recognise the need to do more in this area, and I can confirm to him that the Government do stand ready to legislate to protect Northern Ireland’s integral place in the United Kingdom and the UK internal market, alongside an agreement to restore the Executive. We can do this apace, and I know that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues are working hard to achieve that. Our NHS, our police officers and the most vulnerable in Northern Ireland need devolved government urgently, and I think it is incumbent on all of us to work to work day and night to help to achieve that.

Luke Evans: Mr Speaker, 121 MPs from across the House signed  my open letter to supermarkets, asking to have a “Buy British” button online. I am pleased to announced that last week Morrisons was the first supermarket to implement a “Buy British” tab. This gives consumers the choice to have home-grown produce and also  supports our farmers. Will the Prime Minister join my calls to other supermarkets to have the courage to make the change and follow suit?

Rishi Sunak: This Government will always back our farmers, and I welcome the work of my hon. Friend and the National Farmers Union on this issue. We absolutely support calls for industry-led action on this topic, and I welcome the news of the “Buy British” button at Morrisons. We will continue to encourage all retailers to do all they can to showcase the incredible food produced right here in the United Kingdom.

Stephen Timms: The marriage plans of thousands of couples were dashed last week by the sudden announcement of a big increase in the salary requirement for a spouse visa. Can the Prime Minister give any reassurance to those with well-advanced marriage plans that now appear to have been scuppered, and to families already in the UK who need to extend their stay but who will not comply with the new rules? Can he at least offer some transitional help for families, or does his party’s support for the family now apply only to the highly paid?

Rishi Sunak: We have a long-standing principle that anyone bringing dependants to the UK must be able to support them financially. We should not expect this to be done at the taxpayer’s expense. The threshold has not been raised in over a decade and it is right that we have now brought it in line with the median salary. The family immigration route does contain provision for exceptional circumstances, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, but more generally it is also right to look at transitional arrangements to ensure that they are fair, and I can tell him that the Home Office is actively looking at this and will set out further information shortly.

Holly Mumby-Croft: I make no apology for once again raising the issue of steel—[ “Hear, hear!”] We are now at serious risk of losing the ability to make virgin steel here in the UK. I know that the Government are working hard on this, but it is a matter of national security and we need the Prime Minister’s leadership on this issue. What is he doing to ensure that we are able to make our own virgin steel and that we do not lose it on his watch?

Rishi Sunak: I praise my hon. Friend’s leadership in championing her local community and also the steel industry in the UK. She is right to do so, because it is an incredibly important part not just of our local communities but of our economy and security. She is right to put this issue on the agenda.
We are committed to working with the steel sector to secure a decarbonised future, supporting local economic growth and our levelling-up agenda. That includes our commitment to major support with energy costs and also access to hundreds of millions of pounds of grants to support energy efficiency and decarbonisation. I obviously cannot comment on conversations with individual companies, but my hon. Friend can see from our track record on working with either Celsa or Tata Steel that we have been able to support our fantastic steel industry, and we will always continue to do so.

Cat Smith: A rogue company has walked away from 13,000 tonnes of hazardous waste in Lancaster, and it has now been on fire for 10 days. There are plumes of smoke covering our city. Lancaster City Council has been left to pick up the tab, and to date it has spent £262,000. Without Government support and intervention this fire will burn for several months, so will the Prime Minister provide my local council with swift Government support?

Rishi Sunak: I thank the hon. Member for raising this incredibly important question. I know she has been working alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) on this. I also thank the emergency services in her constituency. My understanding is that Lancaster City Council, the Environment Agency, the UK Health Security Agency and the emergency services are working together to ensure that the health risks and environmental consequences are minimised, but I will ensure that the relevant Minister understands the absolute urgency of the issue the hon. Lady has raised and make sure that she meets them as soon as possible.

Jerome Mayhew: Some dental practices are taking advantage of post-covid demand to take their NHS practices private, earning more money but leaving behind those most in need. Training a dentist costs constituents in Broadland more than £300,000. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if a dentist accepts public funding in order to qualify, they should be asked to commit to NHS dentistry for a number of years before going private?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We are investing £3 billion in dentistry. The NHS dentistry contract was reformed last year to improve access for patients, and around half of all treatment was delivered to non-paying adults and children. The number of adults seen has gone up by 10% and the number of children seen has gone up by 15%, but my hon. Friend is right that more needs to be done, which is why the Government will bring forward the dentistry recovery plan in due course.

Marsha de Cordova: There are 12 days until Christmas, and hundreds of families in Battersea are worried, not about being able to buy gifts for their children but about whether they can afford food and heat due to the Tory cost of living crisis. This year, over 4,300 emergency food parcels have been provided in Battersea by the Wandsworth food bank, which has told me that it is bracing for the worst winter yet. What is the Prime Minister doing to ensure that families do not go cold and hungry this Christmas?

Rishi Sunak: We care deeply about making sure the most vulnerable in our society get the support they need through the winter, which is why we increased welfare by record amounts earlier this year. We supplemented that with £900 in cost of living payments for the most vulnerable. It is why we have provided energy bill support for those who need our help the most. Pensioners in the hon. Lady’s constituency and elsewhere will receive up to £300 alongside their winter fuel payment. Indeed, that support will last not just   through the winter but into next year, because we are deeply committed to helping those who need it. This Government have a track record of delivering that help.

James Morris: The Prime Minister is rightly focused on taking long-term decisions to improve the lives of people in this country, so can I make a suggestion? Our mental health legislation is 40 years old, and we made a manifesto commitment in 2017 and 2019 to reform the Mental Health Act 1983 because people with learning disabilities and autism who are sectioned under the Act are being kept in inappropriate accommodation for long periods. People sectioned under the Act are not receiving the compassionate care they deserve and are, in a sense, criminalised. They have their mental health condition re-stigmatised by the act of sectioning.
In the absence of a Bill in the King’s Speech, will the Prime Minister agree to meet me and other like-minded colleagues to discuss how we might take forward the reform of the Mental Health Act, because it simply is not fit for the 21st century?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. He is absolutely right about the work that needs to be done, and I am grateful to the Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill. Our intention is to bring forward a Bill when parliamentary time allows.
I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and other colleagues to discuss this. I remind everyone that we are undertaking the largest expansion of mental health services in a generation, with £2.3 billion of extra funding by March 2024. We are increasing capital investment in mental health urgent care centres and, under the long-term workforce plan, providing the largest expansion of the mental health workforce we have ever seen in this country.

John Spellar: Rather than the Government chaos that is dominating media headlines, much more important to the public, businesses and organisations is their deeply unsatisfactory day-to- day experience of engaging with this dysfunctional Administration. As far as they can see, Britain is not working. When is the Prime Minister going to get  a grip?

Rishi Sunak: The most pressing issue facing families is the cost of living. That is why this Government have delivered what we said, which was to halve inflation, and not only that; we are supplementing it with significant tax cuts, which will benefit working families from January—£450 for a typical person in work—demonstrating that we are absolutely on the side of hard-working families. This Government are cutting their taxes.

Jeremy Quin: Breast cancer survival rates have improved, but we need to go further on harder-to-reach cancers. In Parliament this afternoon, there is a drop-in session on lobular breast cancer and the research we need. Could my right hon. Friend or his excellent new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care find time in their busy diaries to join us?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my right hon. Friend for his work on this specific and important issue. I am happy to tell him that I believe the Health Secretary is attending this afternoon’s event to hear more about that work. I can assure him that we are focused on fighting cancer on all fronts: prevention, diagnosis, treatment, research and funding. We are making good progress, but there is always more we can do. I look forward to hearing from him after this afternoon’s event.

Mary Glindon: While the Home Secretary was in Rwanda signing his new treaty, his Department put out a contract to manage small boat arrivals until 2030, at a cost of £700 million to the taxpayer. Does that not show that even the Home Office does not think the Minister’s plan will work?

Rishi Sunak: That is a total mischaracterisation of what was put out, which was an advert, not a commitment. I am glad that the hon. Lady now cares about this issue—not something we have seen previously from Labour. Our track record is clear: we have got the numbers of small boat arrivals down this year by over a third. That is what we are doing about it. The Labour party is voting against every measure that we have taken.

Daniel Kawczynski: I chair the caucus of 38 Conservative Members of Parliament who have Britain’s longest river flowing through their constituencies, and we have presented a business case to the Chancellor for £500 million to try to manage the river holistically. Our constituencies are now facing flooding every year, causing damage to our businesses and our communities. This evening, I have an Adjournment debate on flooding of the River Severn. Will the Prime Minister take an interest, because the business case shows a gross value added uplift for the west midlands of more than £100 billion if we can manage and tame Britain’s longest river?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. I recall that he and I spoke about it when I was Chancellor, and I praise him for his work and   leadership on this issue in his local area. I will make sure that the Chancellor does look at the business case. My hon. Friend will know that we have significantly increased funding for flood defences, to over £5 billion, protecting hundreds of thousands more homes, but if it is an interesting opportunity for the Chancellor, I am sure he will take that up.

Chris Bryant: What is worse: losing your WhatsApp messages as a tech bro, losing £11.8 billion to fraud as Chancellor, presiding over the biggest fall in living standards in our history, or desperately clinging on to power when you have become even more unpopular than Boris Johnson?

Rishi Sunak: What matters to me is delivering for the British people, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Lindsay Hoyle: For the final question, I call Theresa Villiers.

Theresa Villiers: Given the appalling reports of sexual violence committed by Hamas on 7 October and the risk that hostages could have that treatment inflicted on them as well, will the Prime Minister raise this issue in international forums so  that the international community demands, strongly, humanitarian access to hostages in Gaza?

Rishi Sunak: The reports of sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas are deeply shocking. We have raised our concerns with the United Nations a fortnight or so ago, and we are engaging with the Israeli Government to consider what further support we can provide. More broadly, we continue to do everything we can to ensure that all hostages can return safely to their families, including the British hostages and those with links to the UK. My right hon. Friend can rest assured that the Foreign Secretary and I are working tirelessly to bring about their safe return.

LGBT Veterans Independent Review

Andrew Murrison: With permission, I would like to set out the Government’s formal response to Lord Etherton’s LGBT veterans independent review.
The treatment of those armed forces personnel perceived to be LGBT between 1967 and 2000 has long been a stain on the conscience of the nation. Last year, this Government asked Lord Etherton to conduct a review into the impact of the historic ban on homosexuality in Defence. Following the call for evidence, the inquiry received 1,128 responses from those who were dismissed or discharged because of their sexual orientation; from those who felt compelled to resign, purchase their release from service or curtail their contracts because of the ban; and from those who, while not part of the LGBT community, witnessed the trauma of such antediluvian rules, as family members, colleagues or friends. Etherton paints an unflinching picture of the most shocking treatment of gay members of our Defence community by an institutionally homophobic organisation.
Out of the blue, when applying to be a reservist in 1980, I was asked if I was gay. Even then that struck me as hugely inappropriate, but that strong sense of impropriety, which has stayed with me for 43 years, pales into insignificance against the wall of hurt experienced by LGBT people in the course of their Defence journey, much of it evidenced by Terence Etherton.
Different members of the community have been impacted differently. Yet, for each and every one, the repercussions were enduring, with the tentacles reaching into all dimensions of their lives since. Sadly, we cannot turn back the clock, but we can apologise for decades of hurt. That is what the Prime Minister did after Lord Etherton published his report in July and what the Defence Secretary and chiefs of service have done in their turn. However, apologies alone are not enough.
Etherton demands more and we agree. That is why the Government took steps to right historic wrongs, even before the report was published. In 2021, we began handing back medals to anyone who had had them withheld or removed because of their sexuality. Medals matter; they should never have been snatched away. In December 2021, we removed the barriers that prevented those living with HIV from joining the military and, back in June, the Home Office extended its disregard and pardon scheme, wiping historic convictions for same-sex sexual activity. The extension was especially important for veterans, because it broadened the eligibility to include any same-sex conviction that would not be a crime today, thereby covering service disciplinary offences.
In addition, we published guidance helping to make LGBT veterans aware of things to which they might not have felt they were entitled. That includes information on mental and physical health support, as well as benefits that all veterans are able to receive, not to mention the armed forces veterans badge, which I handed out to a number of veterans at this year’s Pride event in London.
However, today we go further still. I can announce we are accepting the intent behind all 49 of Lord Etherton’s recommendations. In fact, to date we have already implemented almost half of them. We have established a legacy website to host the review, the Government  response and information collected by the review, including testimonies. Through Op Courage, we are ensuring a focus on the non-combat mental health impacts of the ban.
Significantly, in some instances we have gone above and beyond the review recommendations. For example, Etherton advised making certain restorative measures available for the next of kin of deceased veterans, but we have created a broader definition of next of kin—namely, persons of sufficient interest—recognising the impact the ban may have had on LGBT veterans’ relationships and ensuring that those they would have nominated as next of kin are seen as such. Next year will see the expanded roll-out of the armed forces veterans card to all veterans who served in the UK armed forces before 2018, and planning for a veterans memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum is also now under way.
Today, we are throwing open the front door to our LGBT veterans. Today, we ask them to apply or register an interest for restorative measures that are relevant to them, including individual apology letters, return of berets and cap badges, amendments to veterans’ service history and additional personal testimony to evidence collected by the review. That testimony will eventually become part of the historic record in The National
Archives, signalling that our LGBT veterans will never be forgotten and that 33 years of national shame will never be expunged, and affirming and celebrating the part that those veterans played in our country’s history. I strongly urge colleagues across the House to encourage LGBT constituents to come forward, read the online guide and complete the application form for restorative measures. Importantly, the form will also allow veterans to indicate their interest in applying for a financial award when eligibility is confirmed and that scheme goes live.
Lord Etherton recommended that an appropriate award should be made to affected veterans, with the Government’s overall exposure capped at £50 million. We have agreed to that in full, but, in order to develop the scheme, we will first need to gain a much better understanding of what the affected cohort looks like. Hence, we are calling for veterans to indicate their interest on the form that goes live today. That data will help officials and the community—working together—to design a fair and equitable scheme for distributing the funds that Lord Etherton has called for and that we accept. There will be an opportunity for a full debate in the new year once the financial award scheme is matured and we have the benefit of the data captured through the front door that I am opening today.
Once again, I place on record my gratitude to Lord Etherton and his team for their outstanding work compiling a comprehensive and deeply affecting report. I thank Fighting With Pride and our working group, including trusted stakeholders and independent LGBT veterans, who not only made sure that their voices were heard, but helped steer our response throughout. They will not seek it, but may I mark out Craig Jones and Caroline Paige in particular for their part in bringing us to where we are today? Above all, I pay tribute to all those who came forward in the first place. Those veterans showed tremendous courage in chronicling traumatic experiences, which for many had been suppressed, causing grief and groundless silent shame for decades.
Today’s Defence has come a long way since 2000. We cannot change the past, but we can make the future better. In accepting Lord Etherton’s recommendations, we salute a slighted generation and ensure that its successors can hold their heads high in a place that wants them, values them and honours them. I am today placing a copy of the Government’s response in the Library, and I commend this statement to the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

John Healey: I thank the Minister for early sight of his statement.
With due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, who is a diligent Minister, this statement should have been made by the Defence Secretary; the last one was. This no-show from the Defence Secretary downgrades the importance that the Government give in July to backing up the Prime Minister’s apology to LGBT+ veterans. Crucially, it undermines the confidence that LGBT veterans will have in the Government being serious about fully implementing the Etherton review and fully righting the injustices arising from the ban on LGBT people serving in our armed forces until 2000.
This is unfinished business for Labour. We lifted the ban in 2000. We argued for the Etherton review in the Armed Forces Bill. We welcomed its publication and recommendations. We again thank Lord Etherton for his review and the inclusive way in which he conducted it.
At the heart of the review were the statements of those who were victims of the overt, often brutal, homophobic policy. We pay tribute to them for sharing their experiences and giving their testimonies. Like the Minister, I also pay tribute to groups such as Fighting With Pride, which have campaigned for justice, along with backing from wider veterans organisations such as the Royal British Legion and Help for Heroes. This is a cause that unites the House.
The previous Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), said in a powerful and moving statement in July that he had
“decided specifically that a debate in the House should take place”
in order to
“make sure that the House properly debates the report and the Government’s response to it,”
and not just the compensation scheme, as the Minister has implied. Will the Government honour that promise to the House in full? When will that debate take place? To be clear, the debate is of profound importance to veterans. It should be a watershed moment for defence to move beyond the long, shameful shadow of the past, and to say in the future, “We are deeply proud of our LGBT veterans. We honour your service to our nation. You are part of us.”
The previous Defence Secretary also said:
“We will be very happy to work with the Opposition…to discuss our thinking on the recommendations.”—[Official Report, 19 July 2023; Vol. 736, c. 921-24.]
That has not happened. The Minister confirmed today that the Government
“are accepting the intent behind all 49 of Lord Etherton’s recommendations.”
The previous Defence Secretary pointed out that the Government
“may deliver a number”
of those recommendations
“in different ways from that described in the report.”—[Official Report, 19 July 2023; Vol. 736, c. 921.]
In his statement today, the Minister was not clear on that.
We welcome progress on handing back medals, on an armed forces veterans badge and on a national memorial, and we welcome the opening of registrations of interest for the restorative measures, but what action is the Minister taking to ensure that pensions are fully restored to those who were misinformed that their pension rights had been abolished, and to guarantee that those whose evidence of investigations was destroyed in 2010 do not lose out? Will he fully involve Fighting With Pride and other veterans groups in developing the compensation scheme, and confirm that the scheme will make provision for the two main groups proposed by Fighting With Pride? Is the financial provision of £50 million in the 2024 Ministry of Defence budget, and when does he aim to open up the scheme?
We cannot change the past, but we can act to make amends. We can honour the service of our LGBT veterans. We can take pride in the inspiration that they provide to future generations. That is what they, and we across the House, have the right to expect from Ministers.

Andrew Murrison: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I gently remind him that it was this Government who set up the Etherton review, and it is this Government who are carrying out the 49 recommendations. I am proud of that. He needs to be very careful: political parties should not throw stones, and I think that he would be the last to try to make party political points out of this subject matter. To a large extent, I think that we have resisted that.
I said that a full debate would happen in the new year, but it must have the advantage of there being something meaningful to debate—namely, the financial elements, which I perceive to be the main point of likely controversy. The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that we are all in agreement with the general thrust of the review, so the controversy will be around how we structure the financial award. I expect to be in a much better place in the new year to bring a suggestion to the House about how we might do that, having consulted others and observed the lessons of the past and experience in other countries. However, the debate will not be confined to the finances. I think that was implied by my use of the phrase “full debate”. I hope that reassures him.
On intent, we have discussed before other ways of delivering the same outcome to the satisfaction of veterans. For example, some veterans want a veterans badge that is different from the existing veterans badge; some do not. We have therefore designed a ribbon, which I have seen the prototype for, and I think that is a compromise. That is an example of how we might do things differently from the ways described by Lord Etherton. Lord Etherton also talked about re-listing people on the Navy, Army and Air Force lists. Those lists do not exist in the way they once did, but we can publish those names, if people want them published, via the London Gazette. That is a further example of doing the same thing, but in a different way.
We debated pensions in the summer, when we last went round this particular buoy, so the right hon. Gentleman will know that accrued pension rights remain. However, some people were misled when they left the armed forces, and I strongly recommend that they refer to the guidance available on gov.uk. The “LGBT veterans: support and next steps” page is very comprehensive and will take people through how they can apply for pensions if they are not currently drawing them.
Destroyed documents, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, are impossible to rediscover. However, there are tags attached to most of them that highlight the fact that material has been removed following the advice of the Association of Chief Police Officers in 2010, so there is a marker, at least, of why those pages are missing. He will know too that ACPO made those recommendations for very good reasons at the time—namely, the desire of people who had been wronged to have reference to those wrongs expunged from their records.
I think that I have covered most of the right hon. Gentleman’s points, but I want to be as comprehensive as I possibly can, so if I have missed anything out, I will be happy to write to him.

Caroline Nokes: I welcome the Minister’s statement. Last week, I met Fighting With Pride and one of my constituents, who I will not name because he has not given me permission to do so. Three points came across in that meeting. The first was the importance of testimonies. He was a grown man who had been discharged in the 1980s and whose mother had received a letter from his commanding officer outing him as gay. He was still traumatised and crying in my office last week. This is about making sure that those testimonies are heard. The second point was about having the debate on the Floor of the House and not farming it out to Westminster Hall. Will the Minister make sure that the debate happens on the Floor of the House?
The third point was about financial redress. I welcome the opportunity that my constituent will now have to feed in how he has been impacted—how he has lived a life alone, because he has carried that shame for all these years. On behalf of my constituent and all the other LGBT servicemen and women who suffered in that way, I put it on the record that they want the opportunity to feed in their own stories so that the financial redress addresses the harm they suffered.

Andrew Murrison: My right hon. Friend is right that testimonies are vital. Those testimonies will ultimately be lodged in the National Archives and they will be part of our national story. I urge her to encourage her constituents to log on and provide their testimony—that is very important. I can confirm that the debate will be on the Floor of the House and not in Westminster Hall.

Rosie Winterton: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Kirsten Oswald: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. In it he said:
“The treatment of those armed forces personnel perceived to be LGBT between 1967 and 2000 has long been a stain on the conscience of the nation.”
It has also been a stain on the conscience of this place, so I welcome his statement today and the work of Lord Etherton. The apologies the Minister spoke of are welcome, but they will never take away the hurt or the terrible impact on the lives of those affected by this institutional homophobia. We must remember that while homosexuality was decriminalised in 1967, the ban on LGBT people in the armed forces remained for 33 more years. That is three decades of additional harm. The reality is that all our veterans deserve respect and proper support, and all the more so those ostracised and shamed in that way.
I recognise what the Minister said on reparations, but what assessment has he made of the adequacy of the reparations cap? I wonder how that arbitrary cap on reparations payments will work, particularly when, as he said, we are asking people to come forward. How can he set a cap at this stage? He said he is throwing open the doors today, but that needs to be done in a way that is as easy as possible for people to navigate and that works for all those affected. No one must be left behind.
My colleague Keith Brown MSP, himself a veteran, is leading a Members’ business debate in the Scottish Parliament today on Fighting With Pride. I was pleased that the Minister spoke about Fighting With Pride and I would be keen to hear more about his reassurances that he will continue to work with that group and others to make sure that all LGBT veterans are properly and adequately supported in the way that is right for each of them individually.

Andrew Murrison: The cap is part of the Etherton report. We have accepted all 49 recommendations and are working them through. I do not know—the hon. Lady will have to ask him—but I suspect that Lord Etherton was mindful of the Canadian experience in that regard. The Canadian scheme is not directly comparable to anything we might set up, not least because of its scope, but nevertheless there is precedent and I imagine Lord Etherton was mindful of that. The hon. Lady is right to suggest that we should work with the community, and she cited Fighting With Pride in particular. We have of course done that throughout and I pay tribute to them. We will continue to work with them on the details of the financial scheme as we work those out in the next few months.

James Gray: When Fighting With Pride described to me, some time ago now, the awful things that we had done to LGBT veterans, it was the worst injustice I had heard of in my 26 years in Parliament. I welcomed the Etherton report, which came about as a result, and I welcome the Minister’s warm, deep and expansive response to it today. The fact that he is accepting all 49 recommendations is vital. The debate is also important, because veterans want to tell their tales through their own MP, and I think that will be a great opportunity to do so. However, like the SNP spokesperson, I have a concern: if the claims that come through the website that the Minister describes come to more than £50 million, will the Government undertake to revisit the cap? It would be crazy if £51 million was applied for, but the cap said that only £50 million could be paid out.

Andrew Murrison: My hon. Friend will know full well that we cannot write a blank cheque. It is just not possible to do that. Lord Etherton came up with £50 million, which  is a significant amount of money. He will have been mindful of other schemes, albeit not directly comparable, in this country and overseas. That is why, I believe, the figure of £50 million was arrived at.

Kevan Jones: I thank the Minister for his statement. Recommendation 16 of the report references pensions. In his statement, he said that people can apply for pension that had been accrued, but some individuals will have expected a pension for longer service but been dismissed before they could accrue it. Will that be taken into account, and will next of kin be able to access those pension benefits?
On the £50 million compensation, which is recommendation 28 of the report, I am a little lost to understand how that will be distributed. If the Minister is going to come up with a scheme, I suggest that he looks at the Post Office Horizon compensation scheme, of which I have been on the advisory board for the last year, helping to develop it. We are going to have to look at what elements are taken into account before we get to an accrued sum. Setting up an advisory board or some steering group to work up the scheme would be a good idea—and let me say that I do not think £50 million will even touch the sides.

Andrew Murrison: There is precedent for such a scheme, as I say—I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Canadian scheme—so we are not starting with a blank sheet of paper, and neither was Lord Etherton.
On pensions, it is important that those who thought they did not have an entitlement to pensions look again, because accrued pensions are accrued pensions and were not forfeit. I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about pensions that might have been accrued after the point at which individuals left the service. There is no way of restoring those pensions, and I hope he will understand that. It would be incredibly difficult to do that, so I am not going to give him any encouragement that that will form any part of our deliberations in relation to the financial award.

Sarah Atherton: As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on women in defence, and of the Defence Committee’s inquiry on women in the armed forces and female veterans, I wholeheartedly welcome the statement and thank Lord Etherton for his work. However, I am also acutely aware of the strength of feeling on this matter, which disproportionately affected women, and on the ban on pregnancy in our armed forces. Our armed forces still have pockets of misogyny, poor leadership and inappropriate behaviour, so will the Minister continue to commit to rooting that out so that we can have a better environment for our armed forces now and in the future?

Andrew Murrison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and predecessor. I pay tribute to her for the work that she has done, not least in her report, which has been extraordinarily impactful. I agree with her 100%: we need to root out misogyny wherever it is found in defence. I hope she will accept that, thanks to her report and the work of others, we have taken significant strides in that direction.

Clive Betts: On 9 May 1996, I spoke in this House about the case of John Beckett, one of my constituents. He was a young man who had been in the Royal Navy for five years and was going to train to be an officer. Along with three other young men, he was discharged for being gay. All he had done was to have a civilian gay relationship, about which we had told his padre and his commanding officer, and it was sufficient to have him discharged. We can try to undo the wrongs that were done to John Beckett and others at the time. I know that John got another job afterwards, but can the Minister possibly believe it is right that someone who committed no crime—all he did was offend against the bigotry and prejudice of those who discharged him—will potentially have to suffer financially for the rest of his life for what was done to him? Surely, when we come to look at compensation, the principle ought to be to not merely to rectify the hurt and the prejudice of the time, but to ensure that people do not lose out financially for the rest of their lives.

Andrew Murrison: That is why Lord Etherton has made his recommendations on financial awards. The structuring of that is yet to be determined, but I just want to manage expectations—as I suspect my Canadian counterparts managed the expectations of the Canadian community—about the quantum. I do not want people to think that all that financial loss will be restored to them—it would be unwise of us to suggest that.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned padres. I hope that he reads the Government’s response to the report in full. If he does, he will see that there is a specific section relating to chaplaincy, and contrition on the part of chaplaincy about how some of its practitioners behaved during that period, which I think did them no credit at all. I am very sorry to hear the testimony that he has just given. I encourage his constituent to engage with the front door that I am launching today.

Edward Timpson: I join others in thanking Lord Etherton and all those who took the brave step of sharing their experience with him to inform the review and all 49 recommendations. Although significant work clearly needs to be done to follow through on those recommendations, will my right hon. Friend consider how we can use this work to help parts of the world that are still facing up to this realisation? They may need to do a wholesale piece of work to understand how they can change the way they deal with the LGBT community among their military personnel and veterans. The change that we are seeing in the UK must not be stopped from happening elsewhere in the world.

Andrew Murrison: None of us has a monopoly on this. We are learning from the Canadian experience, and I expect others will learn from us. Across the board, this country is looked up to as a purveyor of norms and values of the highest order. When, for example, we train people from among our allies in how to conduct themselves, as is happening right now, those norms and values are inculcated, including this material.

Joanna Cherry: In the late ’80s, I was very close to someone who suffered considerably as a result of this ban when she was thrown out of the Army for being a lesbian. She had her  distinguished and lengthy period of military service cut short, she was humiliated in the process, and, initially, she found it hard to find employment commensurate with her skills and worth as a human being. All that happened to her just because she was a woman who loved other women. It was a ban based on sexual orientation—nothing more, nothing less. Her loss, and that of others, includes pain and suffering, loss of earnings, loss of employability and loss of pension rights. Any compensation scheme should seek to put them back in the position that they would have been in were it not for that homophobic ban. Can the Minister confirm that all those heads of damages—pain and suffering, loss of earnings, loss of employability and loss of pension rights—will be taken into account in the compensation scheme?

Andrew Murrison: The hon. and learned Lady will be aware that, in the early 2000s, the MOD was taken to court by a significant number of people who had been maligned in the way she has described. The MOD was found wanting and awards were made at that time. I cannot give her the assurances that she seeks because the financial awards scheme—it is a financial awards scheme, not a compensation scheme—is still being worked through, but I hope that we will be able to come back to the House soon to describe at least the bare bones of what we have in mind.

Michael Fabricant: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the tone in which he delivered it, and express my pleasure that there will be a memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum in my constituency? What discussions has he had with colleagues in the Home Office regarding any convictions that there may have been for servicemen in connection with their military service and their sexual orientation?

Andrew Murrison: My hon. Friend will be aware of the disregards and pardons provisions in part 12 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. They have the effect of expunging those offences, which are no longer offences. That clearly applies to what we are debating today. The answer to his question is that that expunging of material will be complete in relation to offences that are service offences and go outwith the civilian—then criminal—offences listed in part 12. [Official Report, 8 January 2024, Vol. 743, c. 2MC.]

Meg Hillier: My constituent worked for the Secret Intelligence Service between 1975 and 1984. In 1984, he was offered a posting overseas, at which point he declared that he was gay, and he was then dismissed expressly because of his sexual orientation. I thank Lord Etherton for the review and for meeting me to discuss this. Clearly, the review does not cover my constituent, but he and others in his position do not even have the comfort of being able to go public at any point because of the nature of their employment. Has the Minister spoken to colleagues in other parts of Government? If not, will he undertake to do so, because this experience should not be prolonged for those in the secret element of service to this nation?

Andrew Murrison: I am more than happy to discuss the details of that constituent’s concerns separately. This is a review into the way in which Defence handled the matter between 1967 and 2000, and Lord Etherton’s  terms of reference were drawn up accordingly. From what the hon. Lady has just told me, I do not think that her constituent will be covered by the review, but I am more than happy to have a conversation.

Mark Pritchard: I commend the Government for commissioning the review and thank Lord Etherton for such a thorough piece of work. I also thank the Government for accepting all 49 of the recommendations—it is pretty unusual to accept all the recommendations, so the Government should be commended for that.
To follow on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) about the disregards—or “expunging”, as the Minister suggested—am I right in thinking that those who have had service convictions would need to apply? If so, what more can be done to encourage them to apply to the Home Office for those disregards? Perhaps the Ministry of Defence could proactively suggest to them that they could do so.
Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), the UK intelligence community should not be overlooked. There should perhaps be a second review, or at least some sort of internal review, about the treatment of UK intelligence officers over the past few decades.

Andrew Murrison: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. Lord Etherton’s terms of reference were deliberately drawn in the way that they were to focus specifically on defence, but my right hon. Friend has made a reasonable point, and I am sure colleagues across Government will hear what he has said. I am more than happy to have a discussion about this specific case with the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and with my right hon. Friend, if they wish to do so.
It is important that if we are considering the implications for wider public service, we learn from what has gone before and from this review. I am confident that colleagues right across Government will be looking at what we have proposed doing in response to Lord Etherton’s report today and drawing their own conclusions. Perhaps they can learn from what has gone on and assure themselves that they, in turn, do not have dark corners that need to be given the light that Lord Etherton’s report has certainly given to defence.

Stephen Doughty: I draw attention to my declarations in the Register of Member’s Financial Interests, including those relating to my recent Army Reserve service. I was very happy to be able to do that as an openly gay man alongside many other LGBT+ service personnel who serve us bravely around the world and in this country. That opportunity was not available to the many generations who went before who were equally courageous and brave in the service of our country in so many contexts, but who faced horrific discrimination.
One of those discriminated against was one of my constituents in Cardiff South and Penarth. She was discharged in a totally humiliating way from the RAF in the 1970s for being a lesbian, but in her service record, the reason was recorded as “services no longer required.” I have raised her case with the MOD over  many years, but was told that it could not be changed because it was correctly administered. In his statement, the Minister referred to amendments to veterans’ service history, which recommendations 26 and 27 of the report also refer to. Will he confirm that where individuals were discharged for reasons other than their sexuality, but their sexuality was clearly the reason, that will be considered in restitution for them and their service?

Andrew Murrison: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—I remember him raising his constituent’s case when we debated this matter in the summer. The straight answer to his question is “yes”, and I encourage his constituent to go to the front door that is now open to ensure her case is properly examined and, if she wants, references to what happened to her are removed or expunged.

Hannah Bardell: It is impossible to put a price on, or indeed measure, the extent of the grief, trauma and shame that was caused to LGBT veterans, so why should we be putting a financial cap on the compensation they are going to get? When I was at a Fighting With Pride event recently, that grief, trauma and shame were palpable, so I plead with the Minister that although there is much to celebrate in Lord Etherton’s report—I congratulate him and the Government on it—there are clearly shortfalls, and given that nothing has been decided, he could go further. I am sure he agrees, and I think he should do so, given what has been experienced by our LGBT veterans.

Andrew Murrison: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Lord Etherton recommended £50 million, and we have accepted that recommendation. The details of the scheme will be worked out in the next few months, and I hope she will be pleased with what she sees.
We need to know what the cohort looks like. At the moment, we really do not know that, which is why the front door opens today. In a very short while, I hope, with the help of right hon. and hon. Members across the House encouraging their constituents, we will have a better handle on who needs to be marked with this financial reward, and what they suffered at the time and the degree of that. Once we have a handle on that, we will be better placed to design a quantum that will be appropriate to people who were maligned between 1967 and 2000.

Sarah Champion: I welcome the Government’s recognition of and apology for the persecution, dismissal or forced resignation of LGBT personnel, but the answers the Minister has given are raising more concerns. The first is the cap on reparations, the second is whether there is a deadline for those reparations, and the third is this: if people’s records did not actually state that their dismissal was because of LGBT persecution, how are they meant to prove that it was?

Andrew Murrison: The answer is “with difficulty”, given what happened in 2010 for perfectly understandable and perfectly good reasons—it is the law of unintended consequences, is it not? I cannot give the hon. Lady that detail at the moment, because it is being worked out. It is so very difficult: if everybody had their records marked  up, it would be quite straightforward, but they do not. We need to know who the folk are who are in scope, and then we need to look at what records exist. Many of those records had tags placed on them when papers were removed, which I think will help.
We also have to look at other schemes, such as the Canadian scheme. However, I suspect most right hon. and hon. Members in this House would be cautious about the Canadian scheme, because it drew the criteria very narrowly. Those who were nudged out, or inched out, through all sorts of means—innuendo, personal pressure, or being tipped the nod and the wink that somebody was on to them—would be disadvantaged under the Canadian scheme. I hope they will not be disadvantaged under ours.

Richard Foord: The RAF lost a courageous serviceperson in 1997 when it sacked Carl Austin-Behan. Carl won the Royal Humane Society bronze medal for rescuing a pilot from a burning Hawk aircraft at RAF Chivenor. Last September, an inquiry found that there had been accelerated enlistment for women and ethnic minority candidates in the RAF, which was found to be dubious and possibly in breach of the Equality Act 2010. Clearly, we are not looking for that sort of overcorrection, but what assessment have the Government made of the legacy of the sackings of people such as Carl for recruiting the next generation of courageous gay service personnel?

Andrew Murrison: Let me be absolutely clear: Defence wants people, regardless of their sex, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity and social class. We just want people with talent—that is the touchstone for recruitment into the Army, Navy and Air Force right now. I do not care if people are gay; I welcome gay people serving side by side with everybody else. Our history is full of examples of the most courageous individuals who served in uniform and were gay.

Dan Carden: I am privileged to be an ambassador for Fighting With Pride, and I worked with the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs on this matter before he took up his role. I pay tribute to Caroline and Craig in particular, as well as all the people they have been working with.
Fighting With Pride has welcomed the pace, positive intent and completeness of this process, but the next stage is a full debate in this Chamber to which Members can contribute. I hope the Minister will listen to the representations he has heard today. Finally, I put on record my concerns about the £50 million cap and the fact that the Minister has spoken about this being a financial award scheme, not a compensation scheme. I think the Government are in the wrong place on that and that they will end up causing themselves more problems if they do not seek to compensate veterans who have lost livelihoods, careers and pensions through their mistreatment by Government.

Andrew Murrison: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s observations. He may like to look up the Canadian scheme, which is a reasonable exemplar, although the circumstances are different. It awarded 110 million Canadian dollars, and this morning a Canadian dollar was worth 58p, but that scheme covered a much broader scope and the population of Canada is smaller than that of the UK. It covered police, the armed forces and  civil servants, so the scope was much wider. Although the two are not directly comparable, the Canadian scheme does at least make us feel that we are in the right ballpark. I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the commitment he is seeking, but I urge him to look closely at other schemes and certainly at the Canadian one, which is probably the closest comparator we have.

Rachel Hopkins: May I impress again on the Minister the importance of hearing LGBT veterans’ voices on the Floor of the House, just as it was important to hear the apology from the Prime Minister at the time? I, too, want to share my concerns about the structure of the scheme that the Minister has talked about. He has referred to a front door; can we have an assurance that that front door will remain open for as long as is needed? Many of our LGBT veterans suffer great trauma and shame, and will be quite far away from that front door. They will need support from trusted partners such as Fighting With Pride to get anywhere near it.

Andrew Murrison: Yes, the front door will remain open, but a stakeholder pack will also be sent to all organisations that we know are interested, urging them to socialise it, which is vital. I cannot emphasise enough that it is vital that those who believe they are eligible for some restorative action—in the first instance, non-financial—should register their interest. In doing so, they are able to register or flag the fact that they may be interested in a financial award as well. Unless we have that data, I think our job of determining what the scheme ultimately looks like will be very difficult, and the sooner we get a handle on that, the sooner we can start to get money out of the door.

Carol Monaghan: This is an issue I raised many times over the five years that I was the armed forces spokesperson for the SNP, so I very much welcome Lord Etherton’s review, and I pay tribute to Caroline and Craig at Fighting With Pride. We have mentioned the spurious reasons for which many LGBT veterans were dismissed. Of course, the other thing is that the colleagues they served with were encouraged to report their supposed misdemeanours. I do think one of the difficulties for the Government will be tracking down all those who have been affected and impacted by this, but it will not just be in their own records. I am sure there must be things in other people’s records that can be tied into this as well.
I want to mention the £50 million. I have done a quick sum, and if the 1,120 people who responded each got a share, it would be £44,000 each, which is an absolute pittance for a lost career, a lost pension, loss of earnings and the loss of a reference to go on to a new career outside the armed forces. We really have to look at that £50 million figure, which does not even touch the surface.

Andrew Murrison: The Canadian scheme offered sums ranging from 100,000 Canadian dollars to 5,000 Canadian dollars depending on what happened. It was tiered in a way that gave a range of awards depending on the experience evidenced, and it was evidenced. It is more difficult when we come to a scheme where evidence is difficult to come by. I think the hon. Member would accept that, for some of the higher level awards, we do have to have some form of evidence that people were forcibly ejected from the armed forces. Now, £50 million is a great deal of money. It is a recommendation in the Etherton report, which we have accepted. We will use that as our guiding star in designing the scheme that we have in mind for financial awards. I am not going to promise her or indeed give her any hope that we will breach the £50 million. It is the Government’s intent that we should stick at that figure.

Ruth Cadbury: I want to add my gratitude for the work done by Fighting With Pride and to those affected veterans who gave evidence to the review, including a constituent of mine. In response to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who is no longer in his place, the Minister mentioned—I hope it was a slip of the tongue—the debate today. I do hope that the debate will be soon in the new year in this Chamber and in Government time.
It is being reported that an earlier draft of the Etherton review recommended double the compensation offer for LGBT veterans than has come out in the final version. Can the Minister tell the House if that was the case and, if so, why the compensation offered has been halved?

Andrew Murrison: I am certainly not aware of that. Lord Etherton is known for his independence, and his report was independent. Lord Etherton said £50 million, and I will leave it at that.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the Minister for his statement.

Afghan Resettlement Update

Johnny Mercer: In September this year, I notified Members of the House that on 31 August the Government had successfully ended the use of bridging hotels for thousands of legally resettled Afghans, and through the hard work and determination of central Government officials and local authorities, the vast majority of them are now in settled accommodation. Hotels were never designed to be a permanent solution either for the Afghans who risked their lives working for UK forces in Afghanistan or, indeed, for the British taxpayer. Ending the provision of bridging accommodation was the right thing to do for our Afghan friends, who can now get on with rebuilding their lives.
The hotel exit plan required a considerable cross-Government effort and represented a significant national achievement, but our debt of gratitude to our Afghan partners is ongoing. We are now working to ensure that Afghans who are eligible for relocation via the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, and who remain overseas in Pakistan and other third countries, are moved over here at pace so they can start to rebuild their lives here in the United Kingdom.
On the current trajectory estimates, we expect to have welcomed around 3,500 arrivals by the end of 2023 across ACRS and ARAP, and wherever possible new arrivals will go straight into settled accommodation. For ARAP families, this will largely be into service family accommodation options, which have been made available by the Ministry of Defence across the country. The Ministry of Defence is also providing shorter-term transitional accommodation until movement into settled accommodation is possible. For ACRS arrivals, we are committed to bringing eligible persons over to the UK as fast as possible, and this week we will welcome 250 arrivals from Pakistan, with a further flight arriving next week. Some 70% of families manifested on these flights have been pre-matched into settled accommodation, but for a small number of this cohort transitional accommodation will be required.
The Government remain committed to ending the systemic use of hotels, and we do not plan to open new hotels to meet this increased demand. A small number of hotels with existing contracts will be extended for a limited time period to help accommodate ACRS arrivals who have yet to be matched to settled housing solutions in the United Kingdom. The Home Office has already undertaken initial engagement with local authorities in which those hotels are located, and it will continue to work closely with councils across the United Kingdom to ensure they are receiving the support they need to relocate Afghan families into settled accommodation as quickly as possible.
The Government recognise the challenges that local authorities face when it comes to resettling communities across the United Kingdom, and that is why we put in place a generous funding package of £285 million in March to help fund housing solutions and support councils to provide integration support to Afghan families. While the scale of the task is much smaller this time than it was in the summer, with the vast majority of arrivals this year already pre-matched to settled  accommodation, the Government will be matching the commitment we previously made to local authorities by offering a similar funding package of financial support for the resettlement of these new arrivals.
That includes wraparound funding of £28 per person per day, which is available to councils that are supporting households in transitional accommodation. In addition, local authorities will be able to draw on the flexible housing fund, which provides over £7,000 per Afghan individual to enable them to support move-ons, and that will be capped at £35,000 per household. Furthermore, funding will be provided to mitigate any additional pressures of homelessness from transitional accommodation, and there will be up to six months of wraparound funding for those in temporary accommodation. Where local authorities are supporting Afghan arrivals into settled accommodation, they can claim the integration tariff funding of £20,520 per person over the first three years towards resettlement and integration costs.
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will continue to explore a range of accommodation options to ensure the use of transitional hotel accommodation is kept to an absolute minimum. This includes exploring a pilot sponsorship scheme that aims to support ACRS households and builds on the learnings from the Home Office community sponsorship scheme and the Homes for Ukraine scheme that proved so successful. As was the case before, the role of the voluntary sector is vital in providing support at a local level.
I want to reassure Afghan families who remain in Pakistan and other third countries, and who are eligible to come to the United Kingdom, that this Government will work night and day to bring them over as quickly and as safely as possible. I recognise the uncertainty that comes with living in temporary accommodation. That is why Departments across Government continue to work at pace, and in step with their local authority and third-sector partners, to provide suitable settled housing solutions as quickly as possible. The Prime Minister has asked me to oversee the successful delivery of that operation, and that is exactly what I intend to do.
No one knows more than me the debt we owe to our Afghan partners. We have a collective responsibility to ensure that we continue to support them, as they once supported us. I urge local authority leaders to engage as much as possible with central Government over the coming months, to replicate the collaborative spirit that proved so successful during the hotel exit scheme over the summer, and to ensure that all new arrivals to the United Kingdom under those pathways continue to be met with the warm welcome they deserve. I remain determined to deliver that for the Afghan people, and I commend this statement to the House.

Rosie Winterton: I call the shadow Minister.

Steve McCabe: As this is my first outing at the Dispatch Box in my new role as shadow Minister for Veterans, let me say that the Labour party is proud of our service personnel, our veterans and our armed forces communities. I also thank my excellent predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), for all her  hard work. I will attempt to build on her efforts to improve the lives of veterans and their families across the UK—I hope I can work with the Minister on that.
I pay tribute to all those involved in Operation Pitting, all those who served alongside our forces in Afghanistan, and all those who worked to assist them. I thank the Minister for, as he acknowledged, his first oral update on Afghan resettlement since September. Since then it has been confirmed that, unfortunately, Ministers have missed their target to clear the ARAP backlog. Thousands are still waiting in Pakistan. There is real concern that ARAP and ACRS applicants could be sent back to Afghanistan.
Families are still awaiting permanent accommodation in the UK, and military sites, as we have heard, are being used as temporary housing. Just today, I understand that the Government have been fined £350,000 by the Information Commissioner’s Office for a data breach concerning the ARAP scheme. It is hard to feel proud of our record in relation to those events. Britain’s moral duty to assist these Afghans is felt most fiercely by the UK forces they served alongside. We as a nation gave a commitment to those who served with our forces that we would do right by them when they arrived on our shores.
I note the Minister’s comments about the hotel exit plan. Will he confirm that zero Afghans have returned to bridging hotels since September, and that the contracts that he referred to as being “extended” are only for new arrivals? How many new arrivals have been placed in hotels since September? The Minister said in his previous statement that
“some families have moved into temporary accommodation under local authority homelessness provision. That is less than 5% of the 24,600 people we have relocated from Afghanistan.”—[Official Report, 19 September 2023; Vol. 737, c. 1254.]
That was still over 1,000 people registered as homeless. What is the figure now?
As the Minister mentioned, it has been reported that the Ministry of Defence has made available 700 service accommodation units for Afghans. Yesterday it was announced that the Government are now using Chickerell Camp near Weymouth to house Afghans who supported the UK. How many Afghans are currently in military accommodation, how many MOD sites are currently in use for that purpose, and for how long does the Minister expect Afghans to be accommodated in military housing?
The Minister for Armed Forces said on Monday:
“There are around 2,000 people in Afghanistan who we need to move out and around 1,800 left in Pakistan who we need to bring in. In all, I would expect another 4,000 to 4,500 arrivals.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 635.]
When does the Minister expect those people to arrive, and where will they be housed? Too much of this feels like a saga of failure. It cannot continue. Lives cannot remain in limbo, and Afghans cannot be put in danger from the Taliban. On behalf of our veterans and members of the armed forces, who feel so strongly about this, we must fulfil our duty to them and provide a new and secure life in the UK.

Johnny Mercer: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post, and on another day I look forward to engaging with him across the Dispatch Box on veterans policy. As of 8 December, 215 families remain in temporary accommodation, and as of a few days ago, around  1,826 ARAP-entitled personnel are still in Pakistan. That is obviously blending with the ACRS pathway. Indeed, a flight of 246 people is arriving today on the ACRS pathway and will be met by Home Office officials. As I said, 70% of those have been pre-matched to houses, and we are looking to accommodate the remainder and get them into settled accommodation as soon as possible.
The red lines remain the same: nobody has slept rough as a result of this policy. We are clearly juggling multiple different dynamics when it comes to getting people into this country, into temporary transit accommodation so that we do not delay the flow out of Pakistan or Afghanistan, and then into settled accommodation, which is where we all want these people to be. The numbers are changing every day, and I am more than happy to share what they will be. I do not want anybody to be in a hotel for a day longer than they want to be, whether in Pakistan or the United Kingdom. I am not really interested in what has happened before; we are where we are today.
I am determined that we will see through our duty to this cohort—both ARAP and ACRS—and I will turn myself inside out until we get to the place where all entitled personnel are in settled accommodation in the United Kingdom, in line with our commitments.

James Gray: It is a matter of honour and common human decency that we should give these people, who served us so well in Afghanistan, proper accommodation and a safe refuge here in the United Kingdom. I very much welcome the fact that the Minister is doing that for the remaining people in Pakistan and Afghanistan. I also welcome the fact that he has been clear that hotels are not the right place for these people to be housed, and I am proud that we in Wiltshire are making a significant amount of our empty military accommodation available to them, including 40 in my own constituency, but also a large number across the county. That is a good use for empty military accommodation and I hope it will work extremely well.
Will the Minister make representations to his colleagues in the Home Office that the strength of feeling against the use of hotels for these people stands in some contrast to the Wiltshire golf club hotel, not one mile away from Lyneham, where those people will be housed, which is crammed to the doors with 120 other asylum seekers and refugees of one kind or another? The Home Office must take steps to do what the Minister has done by removing those people from unsuitable hotel accommodation and into decent, permanent accommodation.

Johnny Mercer: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Wiltshire Council is one of many local authorities across the country—I had a call on Monday with officials, and yesterday with council leaders, 270 of them across the country—that are part of this real national effort, and I pay tribute to them for their work on this. The operating box that I am within is the Afghan cohort, both ACRS and ARAP-entitled personnel. Those in the Home Office are dealing with the wider migration issue, and I will let them write to my hon. Friend and answer those points in due course.

Rosie Winterton: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Alison Thewliss: Afghanistan fell to the Taliban in August 2021, and it should be a source of shame and embarrassment to this Government that we are still talking about bringing people to safety over two years later. A marker of the failure of the ACRS and the ARAP schemes is that it is known that there are 17 Afghans in every small boat in the channel for every one who has come over on those schemes. When the Government talk about small boats, they know that it is a result of their own failure to deal with and to support Afghans, to whom he says—and I agree—we owe a significant debt of gratitude.
Can I ask the Minister about his conversations with his counterparts in Pakistan, because it seems very much as if the Government are watching as Pakistan sends people back into the hands of the Taliban? I would like to know what those conversations are. The message going out that he will bring people in Pakistan as quickly and safely as possible will ring hollow to the many constituents who are still in touch with me and desperately afraid for friends and family who are in hiding in Pakistan, waiting for a chap at the door.
I will return to the case of those people who are perhaps owed a debt of gratitude in the schemes and who have not been successful in applying. The case of the Triples has been called a “disgrace” by General Sir Richard Barrons, because:
“It reflects that either we’re duplicitous as a nation or incompetent.”
Which of those does the Minister think he is?
On access to services, the Minister talks about £28 a person a day. That will barely cover the cost of an interpreter, never mind anything else that people who have experienced such trauma may require. It is just not appropriate at all. On the accommodation side of things, I agree that hotel accommodation is never appropriate for the long term, but I have visited the former Napier barracks, which are also extremely poor quality and not suitable for long-term accommodation, particularly in the depths of winter. How long will people be held in that accommodation before they can move on to something more suitable? What support services will be put in place, because I have found them to be completely inadequate?
A constituent of mine has been working since the fall of Afghanistan to get a particular colleague and his family over. He has found it desperately difficult to negotiate the paperwork. As far as I am aware, they have still not been able to bring them over. Will the Minister look at that particular case if I write to him? Finally, can he tell us some numbers? How many expressions of interest are still outstanding? How many people have been lost contact with or have passed away waiting for this incompetent Government to deal with their case?

Johnny Mercer: The hon. Member refers to what has happened in the past, and I have been asked to look at this from a clear date in time. Since then, I have been working day in, day out to get as many as we possibly can of those to whom we owe a duty back to this country and into settled accommodation.
When it comes to conversations with Pakistan, I am clear and have had assurances—as have the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and the Chief of the Defence Staff—that these individuals will not be deported back to Pakistan.

Alison Thewliss: indicated dissent.

Johnny Mercer: The hon. Member shakes her head, but that serious threat is hanging over these families. It has not happened, and it is not right to overplay that when officials and others are working incredibly hard to make sure that we do not cross that red line for anyone who is entitled to be here in the United Kingdom. She well knows it is not £28 per day; that is on top of the £7,000 a person and the £20,520 for integration. I am focused on trying to solve an incredibly complicated and difficult scenario so that we see through our duty to those to whom we owe it. If there are contributions that will help me do that, I will always listen to them, but I am obviously not going to engage when contributions are just used as a stick to try to beat the Government.

Dan Jarvis: I thank the Minister for this statement, and I know he takes these matters seriously, as do Members across the House.
On Monday, in response to an urgent question, the Minister for Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey), said that
“certain members of the CF333 and ATF444 taskforces, will not be eligible for relocation under ARAP.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 629.]
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs well knows, as do I, that the Triples were recruited by the UK, led by the UK and paid by the UK. By design, they served shoulder to shoulder alongside us. We owe them a debt of gratitude, and it is a matter of honour. Does the Minister share my concern that, based on what the Minister for Armed Forces said on Monday, the ARAP criteria do not guarantee qualification for the Triples? He will share my concern that many have already been rejected, and some undoubtedly already are dead. What more can be done to support the Triples?

Johnny Mercer: I pay tribute to my friend, the hon. Member, who I know commanded one of these units at a similar time to when I was in Afghanistan, and he has a deep and intimate knowledge of how these taskforces were set up, paid for and funded. It is for the Ministry of Defence and the Minister for Armed Forces to speak about what that Minister said on Monday, but I am clear that we have a duty to these individuals. While technically the Minister for Armed Forces was right that they were led and had direct command chains into the Afghan Government, there will be no attempt whatever from this Government to close down avenues for those who served in 333 and 444, who the hon. Member personally trained and fought alongside. While I recognise the concern, he will know that I will not oversee a scheme that does not do its duty to those he and I served alongside in Afghanistan, particularly in the 333 and 444 taskforces,.

Kate Osamor: I welcome the Minister’s statement, but I have to use the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituent. Since travelling to the UK as part of Operation Pitting in August 2021, my constituent, who was a military police officer, has been separated from his wife and four children who were unable to travel due to the chaos at Kabul airport. Two years on, he has been resettled under ACRS pathway 1, yet he is still waiting for further information on how his family will be resettled. His wife, unfortunately, is receiving death threats. He is concerned for their safety,  and they are still in Afghanistan. Will the Minister meet me to help get clarity on how my constituent’s family can travel to the UK so that they can get on with their lives together?

Johnny Mercer: If the hon. Member writes to me with that particular case today, I will have a look at it and have an answer for her today.

Wendy Chamberlain: The data breaches affecting 265 people who worked with the UK Government in Afghanistan, for which the MOD was fined by the Information Commissioner’s Office yesterday, are incredibly serious and could have cost numerous lives. We know now that the Afghan resettlement scheme, which was set up to support such individuals, has had numerous issues from the start, with a number of people being incorrectly categorised as ineligible. I welcome the families who are settling into service accommodation in Leuchars in my constituency, but does the Minister accept that eligibility loopholes remain, as eloquently pointed out by the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis)? Will the Minister commit to correcting those in the new year, so that we can support all those who are rightly eligible?

Johnny Mercer: I reiterate what I said earlier: it is a clear red line for me, as it is for this Government. For those who are eligible for those schemes and who are entitled to be in the United Kingdom in settled accommodation, it will happen. We will keep going until we achieve that objective. We stood here in the summer looking to get 8,500 Afghans out of hotels and into settled accommodation. That was a significant challenge, but we achieved that, and I fully intend to achieve this task, too.

Kevan Jones: I thank the Minister for his statement, but the system is still shambolic. I had a constituent who was a member of the special forces who arrived here, but trying to get his family here was complete chaos. We were being bounced between the Home Office, Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence. We finally succeeded, but the process was not easy. Who is actually in charge of this? The frustration in this case—it was clear that they were eligible for the scheme—was that without my intervention, it perhaps would not have been solved.
May I pick up on what the Minister just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis)? Is the Minister actually saying, in contradiction to what the Minister for Armed Forces said on Monday, that this scheme does apply to the Triples? The Minister for Armed Forces clearly said that it did not.

Johnny Mercer: The two things that the Minister for Armed Forces was saying on Monday are correct. Being in a taskforce does not automatically entitle someone to be in the United Kingdom, because while that might initially get them through the eligibility criteria, there may be well-founded reasons why that individual does not settle into accommodation in the UK, including many different national security reasons that have been outlined. He was correct to say that, and he is correct to say that the Afghan taskforce had an Afghan command reporting chain. I am clear about the criteria for ARAP entitlement, and the vast majority of triple-three and triple-four operators should fit within those criteria. If  they meet the criteria and deserve to be in the United Kingdom, I will do everything I can to get them here. This is a Government effort; it is not led by a single Department. This is a cross-Government issue for the Home Office, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Ministry of Defence. I have been asked by the Prime Minister to oversee it, and that is what I am doing at the moment.

Ruth Cadbury: I thank the Minister for including the word “integration” in his statement. This weekend I met a man who is now settled through the ARAP scheme in a permanent home in my constituency after living for over a year in a hotel elsewhere with his family. Although he is hugely grateful to the Government, Hounslow London Borough Council and Refugees Welcome Hounslow for the support he has had to ensure that he and his family are safe and secure, it is not everything. He is working 16 hours a week in a minimum-wage catering job. He has had no support to find properly paid work that uses the skills and experience that the UK valued when he worked for our specialist services in Afghanistan. As well as providing adequate housing, will the Government please ensure that those settled through ARAP and ACRS get quality support to help them into a future career in this country, so that they can be fully integrated?

Johnny Mercer: I do not accept that this individual will have had no support. There would have been a lot of money and support thrown at such individuals and communities as they came in. There is the £20,520 integration fund, which is specifically for that purpose. Clearly, we are balancing different competing pressures when it comes to individuals getting into jobs and using skills that they had in Afghanistan, and that work continues. That will be stood up again for the process that we stood up in the summer, to make sure that we get people out of hotels and into good, long-term accommodation. I fully accept that there is a job of integration to be done there, and that is what we are working to do, using the voluntary sector, the third sector, local authorities and everybody else who is willing to lean into this.

Dan Carden: My constituent’s sister and 70-year-old mother, who were accepted on to the ACRS in January this year, have since been stuck in Pakistan alone and are now homeless, with the constant threat of being returned to Afghanistan. They cannot afford exit visas from Pakistan, and the UNHCR is not currently paying for exit payments. My office has contacted the Home Office on several occasions, receiving only template responses, so will the Minister take a look into this individual case and get back to me as soon as possible?

Johnny Mercer: The hon. Gentleman must be telepathic, because just this morning I have commissioned work to look at what we can do about visa fees. I do not want an extraordinarily complex and expensive programme set back by having to pay a £500 visa exit fee in Pakistan. We are looking at how we overcome that, but I am more than happy to look at his individual case as well.

Joanna Cherry: I was pleased to hear this week that unused MOD service family accommodation in my constituency is going to  be utilised to house Afghan families, and that the Government now aim to bring people waiting in Pakistan to the UK. The Minister seems to have gone some way to unblocking the logjam—I am buttering him up because I want something.
I met the Prime Minister earlier this year to ask him to look at rescuing Afghan women judges and prosecutors, who have been left behind in severe danger, yet nothing has happened. We could look at doing this through community sponsorship, but in the meantime these women are at desperate risk. Will the Minister meet me in the new year to see if he can help break the logjam on this issue as well?

Johnny Mercer: I will absolutely meet the hon. and learned Lady, because I hope we will soon have something to say on one of these schemes. She can have a look at it when we get to that moment, and then we can meet in January to discuss what else she thinks we might do.

Stephen Doughty: I thank the Minister again for visiting Cardiff to meet Afghans living in a hotel in my own constituency. He will know about the constructive approach that was taken by Cardiff Council and Vale of Glamorgan Council in working with his Government’s officials to move people into long-term settlement. Can he assure me that underused MOD estate in Wales will be used to the fullest extent that it can be to support new arrivals? All our local authorities are obviously under substantial housing pressures at the moment. They have gone above and beyond in giving Afghans a very warm welcome. Can we make sure that we are using the MOD estate in Wales fully?

Johnny Mercer: Yes, of course. I had local authority leaders on the phone yesterday, and I know it is frustrating for people if they feel that the MOD has empty properties  in their area that it can be using. To be clear, the MOD is bending over backwards to try to accommodate as many people as we can. Just because a property is empty does not mean that it can be used; there will be plenty of rotational work going on, plenty of maintenance upkeep and so on. We are straining every sinew to make that happen, and it is happening in Wales as well, but I will continue to work closely with MOD colleagues and make sure that we meet this challenge.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his statement and his clear commitment to honour, in his words, the debt we owe to our Afghan veterans. Yesterday’s debate on immigration and those who have entered the country illegally underlined the fate of Afghan soldiers who served with the UK forces and who are soon to be forced back to Afghanistan, probably to face certain death. These men, who put their lives in danger, seek to find a legal home under the promise given to them. I say this very gently: does the Minister accept that rather than send a message that people travelling illegally in boats will have more success than those signed up to the present scheme, we must instead emphasise the need to revisit why so many applications are failing while immigration through illegal means seems the easier and more successful route?

Johnny Mercer: I recognise the challenges with the eligibility process, and people’s concerns and frustration. That is an MOD issue, but as a Government we are working together to remedy it and to make sure that we arrive at the correct outcome. Anybody who has been to Afghanistan or worked with this cohort will know that it is incredibly difficult to identify these people. They have extremely complex families and histories. No one is sitting there and trying to put up barriers to their coming to the United Kingdom, but it is right that we are careful and clear when we process applications. I have given a commitment to this House, and to the Afghan community, that I will keep going until we have seen through our duty to every last one of them.

Point of Order

Barbara Keeley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The daughter of my constituents Brendan and Marion Chesterton died of a pulmonary embolism after she was seen twice at her GP practice by a physician associate. She was 30 years old and a budding actor in musical theatre. The coroner at her inquest said that Emily should have been immediately referred to a hospital emergency unit and that:
“If she had been…the likelihood is that she would have been treated for pulmonary embolism and would have survived.”
Since I raised serious issues in an Adjournment debate about the way that the physician associate was used in this case, I have seen many serious concerns raised by doctors about the risks to patient safety from the way that physician associates are being used, yet the Government are ploughing ahead with their plan for a rapid increase in the number of physician associates in the NHS. I understand that today the Government will lay or have laid an Order in Council—the Anaesthesia Associates and Physician Associates Order 2023—which amends the Health Act 1999 to regulate physician associates via the General Medical Council. There is a real and widespread concern among doctors about the risks of regulating physician associates as if they were doctors, which they are not. Has there been any indication from the Health and Social Care Secretary that she intends to make a statement on this matter? There is a real concern that this is too important an issue to be dealt with by delegated legislation.

Rosie Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and for giving me notice of it. She raised whether a statement was likely to be made. I certainly have had no indication from the Government that they intend to make an oral statement on this matter. I note that the Minister for Health and Secondary Care, the right hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), made a written ministerial statement on Monday, and I understand that there will be further opportunities to scrutinise the draft legislation to which she referred. She is an experienced Member of the House, and I am sure she knows how she can contribute to that process. If not, I know that the Table Office will give her advice. I think we will leave it at that.

Bills Presented

Government of Wales  (Referendum on Devolution) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Rob Roberts presented a Bill to make provision for a referendum on devolution in Wales; to provide that no further such referendum may take place within twenty five years; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 26 January 2024, and to be printed (Bill 137).

Immigration and Nationality Fees  (Exemption for NHS Clinical Staff) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Rob Roberts presented a Bill to exempt NHS clinical staff from the requirement to pay fees under section 68 of the Immigration Act 2014; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 26 January 2024, and to be printed (Bill 138).

Welfare Benefits (Adequacy, Debt and Deductions) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
David Linden presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the potential merits of prohibiting the making of deductions from certain social security benefits within the first six months of a claim, of restricting the making of deductions in cases where a claimant is at risk of hardship, of reducing the maximum proportion of a claim that may be deducted, and of changing the priority order in which debt repayments are recovered by deductions; to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the adequacy of the rate at which social security benefits are paid; to require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for increasing the availability of free debt and money advice for people claiming social security benefits; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 2 February 2024, and to be printed (Bill 49).

Finance Bill

Second Reading
[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Treasury Committee on 29 November 2023, on the Autumn Statement 2023, HC 286; oral evidence taken before the Treasury Committee on the afternoon of 28 November 2023, on the Autumn Statement 2023, HC 286; and oral evidence taken before the Treasury Committee on the morning of 28 November 2023, on the Autumn Statement 2023, HC 286.]

Rosie Winterton: I must inform the House that the reasoned amendment in the name of Drew Hendry has been selected.

Nigel Huddleston: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Before I start the debate, I should declare, to avoid any potential conflict or perception of conflict, that, with reference to my previously published entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my ministerial interests, I have recused myself from making ministerial decisions on issues relating to pillar two, which will be dealt with more than ably by the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies).
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered an autumn statement with a clear intention to strengthen the economy now and for the future. The Government proposed to do that by putting money back in people’s pockets and cutting taxes. The Finance Bill that we are debating today does just that. First, it supports British businesses by allowing them to invest for less, which will encourage innovation and enhance productivity. Secondly, its measures will improve and simplify our tax system, which will ensure that it is fit for purpose.
The Bill covers 36 different measures in total, some of which are more complex than others. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased—or perhaps displeased—to know that I do not intend to cover every one in detail in this opening speech. I would like to focus on some of the key themes and measures.
I will first detail the Bill’s measures to support British business. The Government understand the simple truth that a strong private sector drives economic growth. That growth in turn serves the public good by allowing the Government to invest in public services. Perhaps most importantly, it allows the Government to support the most vulnerable. That understanding has shaped our approach. That is why we are lowering business taxes: because it will incentivise investment and boost private sector growth.
The Bill’s first measure to achieve that will make full expensing permanent, allowing businesses to invest for less. As a result, the UK’s plant and machinery capital allowances will increase. It is effectively a tax cut to companies of over £10 billion a year—the most generous of any major economy. The benefits to the economy of the policy—just this measure alone—are that it will drive 0.1% GDP growth over the next five years, increasing to almost 0.2% in the long run, and it will unlock an  additional £3 billion of investment per year. That is only one of many Government policies backing British businesses.
The Government also recognise the important role of research and development in driving both innovation and economic growth as well as the benefits it can bring to society as a whole. Therefore, we will merge two Government programmes: the research and development expenditure credit scheme and the small or medium enterprises scheme. That will have two key impacts: it will simplify the system and provide greater support for UK firms to drive innovation. Those changes will apply from April 2024 onwards.
The support does not stop there. The Government will also introduce greater support for loss-making R&D-intensive SMEs. We will also lower the R&D intensity threshold required to access that to 30%. That will help about 5,000 extra SMEs, and they will receive £27 per £100 of qualifying R&D invested. Let us be in no doubt that this is a major boost for innovators across the UK. These measures significantly increase support to R&D firms to about £280 million a year by 2028-29, and overall they will ensure the success of UK plc.
I will now outline the next measure to back British businesses. The Government will extend the sunset clause for two more programmes: the enterprise investment scheme and the venture capital trust scheme. Both will be extended to 6 April 2035. That will support young companies to raise capital for successful growth.
The Government applaud our world-leading creative sector—after all, it grew 1.5 times faster than GDP between 2010 and 2019. In response, a new measure to back British business will go even further through reforming tax reliefs to refundable expenditure credits for the film, TV and video games industries.

Andy Carter: I am pleased to hear the Minster outline support that the Government are giving to the creative industries, which secures thousands of jobs around the UK, and particularly in the north-west of England, where we have seen a huge creative hub develop. Does he agree that it is not just about jobs, though? It is also about soft power, which the creative industries ensure goes right around the world, with great British TV and film. Does he also agree that we want to see that continue?

Nigel Huddleston: Yes. My hon. Friend makes an important point. The jobs and economic activity are hugely important, but we are known throughout the world for excelling in the creative sectors—we always have, and we always will. We can all be proud of the incredible creative talent in the UK. He is also right to highlight how it is spread right across the UK.

Barbara Keeley: The Minister is talking about creative industries, and the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) talked about soft power, but I wonder whether the Minister will get on to the changes to other cultural tax reliefs included in the Bill. Among other proposed changes, the Bill will remove European economic area expenditure from qualifying costs for orchestral tax relief from next April. That will result in a significant long-term cut for orchestras that tour Europe frequently. Does he not see that orchestra tax relief—an important  cultural tax relief—is working as it is and should not be amended to the detriment of those orchestras, which should be supported?

Nigel Huddleston: The hon. Lady makes an important point about the success of our creative industries, and particularly the music industry and orchestras. She will be well aware, though, that we are not in the European Union any more, so some of the EEA measures no longer apply. Instead, we have to be World Trade Organisation-compliant. That bring some challenges, but we are certainly there to support the industry across a whole range of measures. I have already mentioned some of them, but we are doing even more with targeted measures to support the sector, because we want to boost investment in three other areas: animated film, animated TV and children’s TV programmes. As a result, those will be eligible for a 5% uplift to a 39% credit rate.

Barbara Keeley: The Association of British Orchestras has warned that, for some orchestras, the proposed changes to orchestral tax relief risk making European touring financially unviable. Given the financial and administrative burdens that the Government have already forced on orchestras through their botched Brexit deal, it seems ludicrous to create more difficulties for orchestras that are touring, especially as orchestra tax relief is working fine as it is. Does the Minister not accept—I know that he has had evidence on this—that the changes are unnecessary and damaging to orchestras?

Nigel Huddleston: As I outlined, I think the hon. Lady is hoping for measures to turn back the clock to when we were in the EU. We are not in the EU any more, and therefore the world is a different place. However, we are always keen to support and engage with the creative industries, and orchestras in particular. When I was at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, we raised those issues again and again—actually, with considerable success—to enable orchestras and tourers to get across Europe, often by doing individual deals with individual countries, which we sometimes have to do now that we are no longer in the European Union.
I will now outline measures to support our employment-boosting agenda. The path to achieve this is clear: we must remove both barriers to work and incentives not to work. Perhaps most of all, though, we must ensure that hard work is rewarded. That is why our spring Budget announcements were so important. Let us take the abolition of the lifetime allowance. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that that will retain 15,000 workers annually and the Bill completes that change by removing the lifetime allowance from the statute book completely.
I now turn to the measures to simplify our tax system. Complex and inefficient taxes are one of the biggest restrictions on businesses. They often come at a high cost in terms of both time and capital. It is the Government’s duty to deliver a modern, simpler tax system and the measures in the Bill will help to do just that. Making full expensing permanent is a huge simplification for larger firms, but we are going further by expanding the cash basis for over 4 million smaller growing traders. This will simplify the process to calculate  their profits and pay income tax. We have also listened closely to feedback from businesses and, as a result of that consultation, some of the main restrictions on using the cash basis will be removed. The simpler cash basis will be the default method for calculating profit, and businesses will therefore start on the simpler regime as standard. We will also be taking forward other technical small measures. Those will include improving the data that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs collects from its customers. These measures will result in a trusted modern tax administration system.
We must also build a tax system that is fair and works for everyone. We cannot understate the role of tax in supporting our public services. Taxes pay for them directly and, through attracting investment, indirectly. We must all fairly play our part. The Bill will make promoting tax avoidance a crime in circumstances where persons continue to promote a scheme after the receipt of a stop notice. It will also enable HMRC to act more quickly to tackle promoters of tax avoidance by introducing a new power for HMRC to bring disqualification action against the directors of companies involved in promoting tax avoidance. We will also reduce the scope for tax fraud in the construction industry by amending the construction industry scheme. The amendment will add VAT to the gross payment status test. This means two things: that compliance will now be checked as part of this process, and that HMRC powers to remove gross payment status will be enhanced.
Of course, it is only fair that we also guard against over-collection of tax. The Bill addresses a concern here, too. It will do so by enabling HMRC to reduce the off-payroll working PAYE liability of a deemed employer who is responsible for ensuring that PAYE is calculated and sent to HMRC correctly. This will apply where that engagement is incorrectly treated as self-employed for tax purposes.
It also remains important that we are in lockstep with our international partners during such unprecedented times. In spring, we legislated to implement OECD pillar two in the UK, building on the historic agreement built by the Prime Minister, to a two-pillar solution to the tax challenges of a globalised digital economy. In the Bill, we are making technical amendments to the main pillar two rules identified from stakeholder consultation. That is to ensure that the UK remains consistent with the latest internationally agreed  guidance.
The Bill builds on the autumn statement that focused on the long-term growth of the UK economy and sound economic policy. What a contrast to Labour’s fantasy economics, including £28 billion per year of additional spending without any idea where that money will come from—although we all know at heart that it will be taxpayers or through more debt, which is, of course, just deferred taxation. In contrast, this Finance Bill backs British businesses, rewards hard work, and supports a modern and simpler tax system. In doing so, it delivers on the Government’s commitments to prioritise economic growth, encourage business investment, nurture innovation and simplify our tax system to combat tax avoidance. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.

Rosie Winterton: I call the shadow Minister.

James Murray: After 13 long years of the Conservatives in power, it is clear that, no matter what they try to do or say, they cannot escape the reality of their record in office. That reality is one of people across Britain being worse off, public services collapsing, and a Conservative party that puts its own interests before the country’s.
We now have a governing party barely able to govern and a Prime Minister barely able to lead, but at least the Chancellor is still following the Prime Minister’s example by trying to emulate his reverse Midas touch. Frankly, whenever the Chancellor talks about getting the economy growing, the country is pushed in the opposite direction. In his speech three weeks ago, he used the phrase “autumn statement for growth” seven times, and what did we see? The growth forecast for next year cut by more than half, cut again the year after that, and cut yet again the year after that. It seems that the Financial Secretary is getting in on the act, too. Today, he talked about what he has been doing to support growth, and what do we see? Figures out today confirm that the UK economy contracted unexpectedly in October, with GDP falling by 0.3%.
It is not just in relation to growth that the reverse Midas touch applies. Last month, the Prime Minister said:
“I want to cut taxes, I believe in cutting taxes.”
But what have we seen? Even after all the changes the Government have announced, the tax burden is still on track to be the highest since the second world war. The truth is that after 13 years of failure on the economy, the Conservatives are incapable of getting our country back on track. After 13 years, they do not have the determination or the plan to get us out of this doom loop where growth is low, taxes are high, public services are collapsing and families are worse off. Only Labour’s plan will bring stability and responsibility back to our public finances, give families the security they need and reform our public services for the future. Only Labour is ready to work with businesses day in, day out to get our economy growing, to create good jobs for the future and to make people across Britain better off.
There are a number of individual measures in the Bill that we have been calling for for some time; we will not oppose its Second Reading, and we look forward to considering it in detail in Committee. However, it is clear that the Bill and the autumn statement it follows are simply the latest chapter in 13 long years of Conservatives failing to get the economy growing and make working people better off. It is sobering and frankly staggering that, as the Resolution Foundation set out following the autumn statement, real average weekly earnings are now set to remain below their 2008 level until 2028. That is two full decades of pay stagnation. That is what happens when the Government cannot find a plan for growth that works.
To be fair, it is not for want of trying. The “autumn statement for growth” is the 11th attempt at an economic growth plan we have seen from the Conservatives. The problem is that the Conservatives simply do not have the ideas we need for our times, nor the focus on the country that the British people deserve from their Government. As Conservative MPs meet behind closed doors to plot their next leadership election, families  across Britain are fed up of struggling and being squeezed, businesses yearn for stability and certainty, and our country misses out on the chance to fulfil its potential.
Of course, people across Britain are feeling the hit not just from growth being weaker and inflation more persistent than in similar countries, but from the 25 tax rises the Conservatives have already pushed through in this Parliament alone. There is, however, one small group of people who will continue to be protected from this Government’s tax rises on much of their income. That group of people is non-doms: those who live in Britain but do not pay UK taxes on their income from overseas. As we have long said, Labour believes it is only fair that if a person makes Britain their home, they should pay their taxes here. Closing the non-dom loophole—replacing that archaic status with a residence scheme like other countries have—could raise crucial funding to bring the NHS waiting list down. Yet today we have another Finance Bill from this Government that leaves the loophole open. The Government are continuing to help a few at the top to avoid paying their fair share of tax when they keep their money overseas, while letting families across the UK face a tax burden that is climbing to a post-war high. Whatever the Government say, that is the reality facing working people in Britain.
As the Resolution Foundation points out, any cuts to personal taxation announced in the autumn statement pale in comparison with previously announced tax rises through the freezing of national insurance and income tax thresholds. The Resolution Foundation concludes that the combined effect is an average tax rise of £1,200 per household, with almost every single person in the country who pays income tax or national insurance paying higher taxes overall. Across all taxes that the Government levy, the Resolution Foundation points out that
“despite the tax cutting rhetoric, the reality is that the tax burden is rising, with tax receipts as a share of the economy set to reach 37.7 per cent in 2028/29, the highest level in 80 years.”
That is the reality from which the Conservatives cannot hide.

Barbara Keeley: My hon. Friend is making a great speech. He has been talking about the tax burden, and I raised the subject of cultural tax reliefs earlier. Another change in orchestra tax relief is that eligibility requires 10% of expenditure to be on goods or services that are used or consumed in the UK, rather than being incurred in the UK. The Association of British Orchestras has said that there is a lack of clarity about what orchestras will now be able to claim. This level of uncertainty is very unfair on UK orchestras, which have been through a turbulent time as a result of Brexit, covid and the cost of living crisis. Will my hon. Friend agree to raise that point with the Minister in Committee, to obtain some clarity and to enable Members to consider what these changes are doing? I appreciate that the subject is too complicated to be dealt with at this point.

James Murray: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point; she is a great champion for orchestras. It is only right, when we consider the details of the Bill in Committee, for us to push the Government to provide the certainty that is so often lacking from many of the measures that they propose.
I was talking about the reality from which the Conservatives cannot hide. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is present, has been desperately trying to claim that the tax burden is going down. Three weeks ago, she claimed that
“taxes for the average worker have gone down by £1,000.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 360.]
Two weeks ago, she claimed:
“Taxes for the average worker will have gone down by £1,000 since 2010.”—[Official Report, 30 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 1084.]
However, analysis conducted by the House of Commons Library makes it very clear that national insurance and income tax for the median earner will rise by well over £1,000—up from £6,112 in 2010-11 to £7,364 in 2024-25.
In an attempt to understand the tension between the Chief Secretary’s comments and the Library analysis, I wrote to her and also tabled written parliamentary questions. The Financial Secretary responded to both the letter and the questions with rather more careful wording, saying that
“an average worker in 24-25 will pay over £1,000 less in personal taxes than they otherwise would have done.”
He was careful to make it clear that the Government’s
“calculations are on a same-year basis against a counterfactual”,
and that this was not, in fact, a comparison over time, as that
“would include the effects of earnings growth on cash totals of tax due”.
I wonder whether the Chief Secretary’s statement that taxes for the average worker have “gone down by £1,000” may have inadvertently misled the House, given that her colleague’s written response to me tacitly admitted that the Government’s statistics do not refer to the actual taxes that a worker pays. When the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury responds to the debate, perhaps he will tell us if he knows whether the Chief Secretary would like to correct the record. Whatever the Conservatives say—however they twist and turn—the truth is that people across Britain are feeling the squeeze, and life is very different from the picture that Ministers are desperately trying to paint.
I have already made it clear that we support a number of the individual measures in the Bill. We welcome, for instance, the measure in clause 1 to make full expensing permanent; we have been calling for that for some time. Welcome as it is, however, it simply cannot make up for the years of uncertainty that businesses have faced. When I meet businesses across the country, they are clear that they want stability, certainty and a long-term plan, but even during the time for which I have been shadow Financial Secretary—a period that has seen five different incumbents of the office that I shadow—business taxation and reliefs have been chopped and changed every year.
Let us take the annual investment allowance. At the start of this Parliament, it had been raised to £1 million on a temporary basis. That temporary basis was extended first by the Finance Act 2021 and again by the Finance Act 2022, and was then made permanent by the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023. During that time, of course, the super-deduction, which Members may recall, came and went entirely, and last year full expensing for expenditure on plant or machinery was introduced—but, again,  only on a temporary basis for three years, before being amended yet again this year to be made permanent. Frankly, while the latest Treasury Ministers may say that full expensing is now permanent, how long any policy under this Government may last seems to be decided by the Conservatives’ internal battles rather than what is right for the country.

Andy Carter: The hon. Member has said that Labour will support the Bill today, and I welcome that, but I have been doing some calculations. Does he agree that if Labour remain committed to their £28 billion borrowing plan, debt will soar and they will break their own fiscal rules?

James Murray: The hon. Gentleman was desperate to make an intervention about fiscal responsibility, when just a year ago his party crashed the economy and sent interest rates soaring, and working families throughout the country are still paying the price. We on this side of the House take fiscal responsibility seriously. We want to have a fiscal lock in place, we want to get debt falling, and we want to get the economy growing. That is the difference between us and the Conservatives.
Clause 2 contains measures on research and development. In Committee we will probe the impact of those changes in greater detail, but it is clear straightaway that stability and certainty have been lacking here as well. We need only look at the changes in the current Parliament’s Finance Acts. The Finance Act 2020 raised the rate of the R&D expenditure credit from 12% to 13%. The Finance Act 2021 made changes to the amount of R&D tax credit that small and medium-sized enterprises could claim. The Finance Act 2023 again changed the rates of R&D tax reliefs, and that same year the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 made yet further changes to how the relief operates. Now, of course, the Finance Bill before us introduces a whole new regime. Businesses making investment decisions yearn for stability and certainty, but after 13 years in office, the Government are proving themselves incapable of providing those crucial foundations for success.
We acknowledge, of course, that the tax legislation in Finance Acts needs to be kept updated, and that some change is not only inevitable but important in enabling legislation to function well. However, with this Government it is hard to avoid the sense that changes are being made without a long-term plan in mind. It looks very much as if there has been no long-term plan for capital allowances or research and development reliefs, and the same is true of tackling tax avoidance and evasion.
Although we welcome any measures to tackle tax avoidance and evasion, again there has been a busy history of legislation in this Parliament alone. The Finance Act 2020 made changes to the general anti-abuse rule, introduced to deter taxpayers from using tax avoidance schemes. That was followed by more changes to the rule in the Finance Act 2021, alongside other changes to the legislation covering avoidance. In the Finance Act 2022, a further round of changes were made to the legislation relating to avoidance, including on HMRC’s publication of information about avoidance schemes. Now, in 2023, we see the latest set of changes to the rules and penalties in respect of avoidance and evasion. While we will consider the detail of those changes in Committee, it is already clear that a long-term plan is very hard to see.
Stability and certainty are crucial foundations when businesses are making decisions about where to invest and where to create jobs. We in the Opposition hear that from business leaders day in, day out, across all sectors and in all parts of our economy. We know how much damage is done to economic growth and people’s standards of living when that stability and certainty are not there. We saw that at its most extreme last autumn, when the Conservatives crashed the economy and trashed their reputation in a matter of days, through a reckless disregard for our economic institutions and for working people’s security. But it is not just about last autumn; it is about 13 years of Conservative government. It is about the inability of the Conservatives to provide the stability, the certainty and the plan for the future that businesses and our economy need.

Robert Syms: If we have crashed the economy and we do not have a long-term plan, why are you voting with us today? [Interruption.]

James Murray: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, I took that question to be addressed to me rather than to you. We have made it clear that when it comes to the measures in the Bill for which we have been calling for some time, we welcome and will support them. We would not oppose measures that we have been calling for. However, given the Government’s chopping and changing year on year from one Finance Act to the next, it is desperately clear that there is no evidence of a long-term plan over the past 13 years, and no evidence of the plan that we need for the future. I hope that in a general election, when businesses and working people across the country look at the Conservative party and at the Labour party and ask themselves who has a plan to grow the economy and make working people better off, they will conclude that it is us.

Barbara Keeley: May I make a further point about cultural tax reliefs? It seems to me that there is not quite enough understanding of the importance of this subject on the Government Benches. International touring is vital to the survival of many orchestras and makes up a fifth of earned income. That is a substantial proportion. My hon. Friend has talked of the changes that have been made, and all the flip-flopping. There is a strong economic and strategic case for incentivising touring in the European economic area for UK orchestras, because it boosts cultural exports and enhances the UK’s place on the world stage. That does not apply only to film and video, which the Minister has mentioned; our orchestras are world-class too. There is a move to limit the cultural tax reliefs, including orchestra tax relief. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that that will be reviewed in Committee, but the key issue is the continuing importance of those cultural reliefs, and what the Minister has said today does not convince me that he understands that. I therefore fully support what my hon. Friend is saying.

James Murray: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention on that point, and we will certainly raise questions on her behalf in Committee to try to get clarity from the Government. As she rightly points out, clarity and certainty have been distinctly lacking from this Government over a whole range of topics. We will certainly press them on that in Committee.
As I was saying in response to the hon. Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms), we will not be opposing many of the individual measures in the Bill, including those on capital expensing, on research and development and on tax avoidance and evasion, but they all serve to remind us just how much of a merry-go-round this Government have become and just how much they lack a plan for the future. A plan for the future is what has been sorely missing from this Finance Bill and from the autumn statement, and it is clear that the Conservatives are now incapable of offering one. With no stability, no real certainty and no plan for growth that works, businesses are left without the partner in Government that they need, and without the growth that our economy needs, working people are left worse off, with the tax burden set to rise to a peacetime high.
If Labour wins the next general election, we will overhaul and accelerate the planning system, modernise our electricity grid, attract far greater private investment, scrap and replace business rates, set out a road map for business taxation and boost skills and training across the country. We will do all that to get the economy growing and to make working people better off. That is the change our country needs. Without change, we would have a fifth term of the Conservatives, and what on earth would that mean for Britain? What would the Conservatives speak of as their achievements in this Parliament? Twenty-five tax rises, the highest tax burden in eight decades, taxes up £1,200 per household and  two decades of pay stagnation, as well as a fall in real household disposable incomes—the first time that has ever happened in a Parliament. That is the record of the Conservatives. That is what they cannot hide from and that is why it is time for change.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

Harriett Baldwin: What an extraordinary experience that was. I have just listened for nearly 20 minutes to the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) ranting on about tax hikes, but at the same time not proposing a single concrete economic policy. Indeed, Opposition Members have gone entirely AWOL. Where are they? There is no one on the Opposition Benches this afternoon. They are not going to oppose a single measure in this Finance Bill. I have scoured Wikipedia for any policy they might have come up with on taxation, and all I have found is that they are proposing an additional £28 billion in borrowing. That is simply more taxes for our children and grandchildren to pay in the future.
I have also spotted that the Opposition have two additional new taxes that they think would be a good idea. Those two taxes are the ones that were outlined by the shadow spokesman. The first is the non-dom taxation, which analysis shows would actually result in a net subtraction in tax revenue to the UK economy. Furthermore, they are proposing that we should be the only country in the world that taxes education, with a tax that would increase the cost to the state and again fail to pay for itself. So that was my scour of Wikipedia. I am now going to move on from discussing the Opposition rant to talk about the excellent points that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) has made.

Barbara Keeley: rose—

Harriett Baldwin: I will give way to the hon. Lady.

Barbara Keeley: I am standing in part to illustrate that I am here, because the hon. Lady just said that there was nobody on this side of the House. Well, here I am, and I have been intervening on both the opening speeches, so I hope she will take that back. Also, could she clarify what she was talking about when she mentioned a tax on education?

Harriett Baldwin: The hon. Lady is the honourable exception that proves my rule. She is indeed engaging thoroughly in the debate from the void that is the Opposition Benches this afternoon. The tax on education is her party’s Front-Bench policy to add VAT to school fees. She may not be aware of that policy, but it is not a good one and I recommend that she use her influence to get her Front Bench to drop it.
Let me turn to the excellent remarks made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It is the view of the Treasury Committee that the tax system in the UK is far too complicated. We were concerned earlier this year, as we mentioned in our report, about the abolition of the Office for Tax Simplification, because we want to see the Treasury team look at more ways in which it can simplify the tax system. We also published a report on tax reliefs that identified more than 1,000 tax reliefs in our tax system, many of whose impacts or costs to the Exchequer the Treasury does not even know. They really should be thought of as expenditure lines, and they should be looked at a bit more carefully. Some of the steps announced in these measures, and indeed in last week’s National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Bill, will do some good in that regard, and I want to highlight those.

Debbie Abrahams: In relation to what the hon. Member was saying about national insurance, would she like to comment on the fact that, overall, the richest fifth of households will be £1,000 better off on average by 2027 whereas the lowest fifth are set to gain only £200. Does that make it the progressive autumn statement that has been claimed?

Harriett Baldwin: I can also attest to the fact that the hon. Lady is the second Labour Back Bencher in the Chamber. That brings the total to the two who are visible to me at this time on the Opposition Benches—[Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Alistair Strathern) is also providing the shadow Parliamentary Private Secretary role. National insurance is indeed a terrible regressive tax as it stands and I wholeheartedly endorse any measures that reduce that burden and simplify things. The hon. Lady has pointed out that this is work in progress, but I think she should welcome the abolition of class 2 national insurance. That has simplified the national insurance system, and in the spring Budget we had the welcome simplification of the lifetime allowance charge. We also had a great simplification in childcare entitlement with the announcement of a much wider offer of free childcare. These simplifications have been broadly welcomed.
There are further welcome simplifications in this Finance Bill. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury was kind enough to write to me yesterday to summarise his principles for the simplification of the tax system. He wants tax rules that
“have a clear consistent rationale”.
He wants it to be
“easy for taxpayers to get their tax right”.
He wants taxpayers to be able to understand what they need to do “at key life cycle points”, and he wants a tax policy that
“does not…distort the decisions of taxpayers and result in poorly informed choices.”
In summary, the Government want
“the tax system to be simpler, fair and to support growth.”
The Financial Secretary’s letter, which we will be publishing on the Treasury Committee website this afternoon, also outlines further simplifications, which were in the remarks he made earlier. They include expanding the cash basis for small businesses, improving the design of Making Tax Digital, simplifying research and development tax credits, which we welcome, and simplifying capital allowances and making them more permanent. I will draw to the House’s attention to other measures for individuals that he did not highlight. There is an increase in
“the threshold for individuals with income taxed through Pay As You Earn to file a Self Assessment return to £150,000”.
That is important because more and more people would otherwise be caught by the freezing of the thresholds. From April 2024, that threshold will be abolished altogether. There are also simplifications for individual savings accounts in this Finance Bill, as well as measures to simplify customs processes. I think the Financial Secretary’s heart is in the right place on simplification, and there is no question but that R&D tax credits were being abused.
I draw the Financial Secretary’s attention to future opportunities for simplification while welcoming the fact that venture capital tax relief is being extended to 2035, as the Treasury Committee called for in our report. I would love to see the Financial Secretary focus on the unintended disincentives to taking on additional work and additional hours that exist throughout the tax system, at all sorts of income points. We have made huge strides on simplifying it for people on universal credit, making every extra hour of work pay, but once people get into the tax system, there are cliff edges and high marginal tax rates that deter them from working more. I will highlight two in particular.
First, the Treasury Committee is currently holding an inquiry on “Sexism in the City,” and we have had evidence on how we could improve some of those marginal tax rates. The child benefit taper was introduced 10 years ago with my wholehearted support. It was the right thing to do in 2013, but it is now time to look again at how it interacts with the free childcare offer. We should consider the opportunity for simplifying the tax system by getting rid of the taper altogether, as it is a terrible deterrent to the families who get caught.
A person with a lot of children, earning between £50,000 and £60,000, can have a marginal tax rate of over 100%. It has become far too complex, and it is deterring many women from taking on more work. With the childcare offer we now have, it is time to  look again.
I also want to throw the evidence from our “Sexism in the City” inquiry into the mix. The City has the highest pay and, indeed, the highest pay gap in the country. Some of the best paid careers for women are in financial   services, but we hear time and again that, because of the tax-free childcare cut-off at £100,000, some women are choosing to work less than a full week. The freezing of the thresholds is having side effects. As the Financial Secretary thinks ahead to next year’s fiscal events, I urge him to consider those two potential simplifications.

Rosie Winterton: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Drew Hendry: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House, while approving the changes to taxation of tobacco in the Finance Bill and full expensing being made permanent, declines to give the Bill a Second Reading because it fails to make a much-needed reduction in VAT for the hospitality and tourism sectors, and fails to introduce measures through the tax system that would help alleviate poverty.”
It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Treasury Committee, on which I serve, even though she is at odds with the London School of Economics and the University of Warwick on non-dom status—we might return to that later.
The problem with this Bill is not so much what is in it but what is not in it. For example, full expensing is being made permanent, which is laudable and is to be supported, but the Minister and, indeed, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) did not mention that choices are being made that fail to support families, that make people poorer and that reduce community resilience and sustainability, which is no way to grow an economy. There was no mention of tackling the growing cost of living crisis that people face every day. There was nothing on rents, mortgages, food bills and, most of all, energy costs, as we go deeper into winter. The Minister is an affable person, but he has a brass neck as wide as the Dispatch Box to say that the Government are looking to invest in public services—I will come back to that in a moment.
Today, the Bank of England has told us that the proportion of mortgage balances in which the borrower is behind on payments is the largest in six years. The SNP asked for direct help for people: a £400 energy bill rebate, a social tariff on energy, a lower price cap, mortgage interest tax relief and help for tourism businesses through VAT adjustments. Of course, there could have been much more, but we got none of that from the Chancellor or from this place.
Instead, the Government turned a deaf ear to the inflationary costs for households, in addition to starving the public sector of funds. Councils in England are already going bust: Labour-controlled Birmingham, Hackney, Croydon and Slough; Conservative-controlled Northamptonshire and Thurrock; and Lib Dem-controlled Woking. The Local Government Association says that one in five councils—60 of them—is at risk of issuing a section 114 notice, but the Chancellor, while doing nothing to help families, is slashing public sector spending. Richard Hughes, from the Office for Budget Responsibility, has pointed out that there are £19 billion of public sector cuts coming:
“the real spending power of Government departments in England goes down by about £19bn over the forecast period”.
The Chancellor has also frozen capital spending, which has a direct negative impact on the spending available in Scotland. When Labour is asked what it would do differently, we hear only silence. There is no attempt by this place to protect public services. Scotland’s block grant has, over the past few years, been cut by 17% in real terms compared with 2010—the House of Commons Scrutiny Unit has given those figures. We all know that inflation running at 4.7%—do not forget that it was much higher last year, at 11.1%—means that any increase is dwarfed by inflation, so when Scotland’s block grant increases by just 1.4% next year, it is wiped out before it touches the sides. This is a savage real-terms cut for Scotland.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that living standards will be 3% lower in 2024-25 than they were before the pandemic, which is the largest reduction in living standards and the highest tax burden since the 1950s. There is zero growth forecast for the economy. The GDP figures from the Office for National Statistics show that for the three months to October 2023 there was no growth, and the economy actually contracted in October.
David Bharier from the British Chambers of Commerce says that this
“confirms the low-to-no growth cycle the UK economy is in.”
That, of course, takes us directly to the choices that this Government and this place have taken since Brexit. Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems support Brexit, so the self-harm continues to cause difficulties.
The UK suffered a broad-based fall in both openness and competitiveness between 2019 and 2021. UK trade fell by 8%, compared with 2% in France. That is not my description; it comes from the London School of Economics. Our industries face severe challenges due to the Westminster-inflicted harm of Brexit, yet this place cannot point to a single benefit, beyond a made-up line about vaccines. Workforce shortages in tourism, hospitality, the NHS and care have all dramatically increased since Brexit—a Brexit that Scotland rejected and continues  to reject. Yet for the people of Scotland, Westminster continues to show indifference.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out that the 2p cut to national insurance in the National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Bill is almost entirely eaten up by frozen tax thresholds, due to what is known as fiscal drag. Basically, this Government are giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
We have seen nothing on energy bills, which are due to rise again in January; nothing on food bills, while countries such as France and Canada take action; nothing on mortgages, on which the Government could have delivered some relief; and nothing to reduce VAT in a range of areas, where the Government could have taken action to help people and to ease inflation at the same time.
Although certain measures, such as full expensing being made permanent, are welcome, the biggest problem with this Bill is what it fails to address, and that is  to help millions of households that are struggling with the cost of living. This place should have introduced  a UK-wide version of the Scottish child payment to help   families. It should have introduced a £400 energy bill rebate and a social tariff, and it should have provided for a household essentials guarantee.
The Government could have addressed unfair tax loopholes by abolishing the non-dom tax status. As I said, the University of Warwick and the London School of Economics reckon that would raise £3.6 billion per year. The Government could have done that and they could have decided to put a tax on share buy-backs, but instead they decided to set their sights on ill and disabled people, telling them to get back to work. It is worth remembering that, according to research in 2015 by the University of Liverpool and the University of Oxford, old-style incapacity assessments were “associated with” an extra 590 suicides across England between 2010 and 2013. This is a scandalous thing to bring to people at this time. Positive Money has noted that a windfall tax on the profits of the big four banks could have raised £20 billion in the first six months of this year, but the Government chose to do nothing.
The autumn statement delivered the worst-case scenario for Scotland and for our people. We needed proper funding for public services, but instead we face massive cuts—the health funding announced represents just 0.01% of the budget for 2024-25. We needed immediate help for people in our energy-rich country to pay for some of the highest energy bills across the nations of the UK.
By contrast, the SNP Scottish Government have ensured that people in Scotland pay less council tax than those in England, and we have frozen council tax for the next year in order to assist with the cost of living crisis. At the moment, people do not have to pay prescription charges or tuition fees, and they do not have to pay for eye tests. Under-22s and over-60s do not pay for bus travel. We also have the Scottish child payment and much more. In Scotland, we have used the limited social security powers we have to provide dignity, respect and support for people. Those are manifestations of the values of a progressive Government looking at every opportunity to help people who are struggling.
Imagine what would happen to all of that for the people of Scotland if this place had control of all of those issues, as Labour and Conservative Members want to happen. The Scottish Government are using all the levers at their disposal to help people through this cost of living crisis, but the implications of this Westminster fiscal event are clear; with the current reliance on Westminster for our capital grant allowances and limited borrowing powers, this place is stamping its austerity on Scotland. The path for Scotland is ever clearer: we need to be an independent country, to rejoin the EU and to have the ability to look after our own people.

Nigel Mills: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Let me start by declaring an interest in relation to clause 15, as I believe I am one of the Members who managed to discriminate against themselves via pension changes a decade ago and therefore will benefit from the tax changes in this Bill. I should therefore perhaps not touch on that any further.
Overall, there is nothing to oppose in the Bill. I will break the habits of this debate and try to speak about the Bill, rather than stuff that is not in it or might have been in it. I will try to address some of the clauses it contains. Clause 1 deals with the full expensing of expenditure on plant and machinery, a matter I raised in the debate on the autumn statement. I welcome the measure, which I hope will work to encourage greater capital investment across the UK economy.
However, we should not underestimate how fundamental a change in our tax system that measure is. We have built, over decades, a series of rules on how companies—and individuals too, but we are talking about companies for this purpose—get tax relief on the capital spend they make. A large amount of work has to go into tracking what is counted as revenue spend and what is counted as capital spend, but now there is no point in doing that work in respect of plant and machinery, because companies are going to get the same tax treatment either way round—so all that can go.
Then there are all manner of ways of getting that relief, be it through the main general pool for plant and machinery, the long-life asset pool or the short-life asset pool. We have different rules for cars, for environmentally-friendly assets and for environmentally-friendly cars. We should take a step back and ask, “Is it necessary to keep this whole complicated regime if, for the vast majority of spend, we are giving 100% tax relief in year 1 when that spend happens? Should we now look at striking away a load of that and just accept that we could have a very different regime?” Perhaps we should just accept the accounts depreciation for all the other assets that are not plant and machinery? I suspect that the loss to the Exchequer for accelerating tax relief on those things would be tiny, but it would take away a huge burden of having to follow a different set of rules.
We also ought to ask, “What do we mean for buildings?” We are now being generous for tax relief on plant and equipment, but not generous at all if a brand-new factory is built. Tax relief is given very slowly on that and even then not on the whole spend. Is that what we want? Or should we be trying to incentivise people to build brand new, modern, energy-efficient factories? We give very little tax relief for office buildings. We want more people to come back to work together in offices, so should we not be incentivising people to build brand-new offices in the right parts of the country, rather than giving no tax relief?
We end up driving an entire leasing industry, because a completely different tax treatment is given where assets are leased or rented, rather than bought outright in someone’s own name. Do we really intend that if someone finance-leases something, they get 100% relief up front? What happens with a hire purchase? All this stuff is so complicated. Having made this radical and expensive change, the Government should go away and think, “What is the future of tax relief for capital items in the UK? How do we incentivise the right form of spend?”
I wish to raise one other question for the Minister to think about. It is very likely that a lot of businesses will be unable to get full relief for this in the first year, because they just will not have enough profit to absorb all their capital spend being relieved in a year. The chances of a medium-sized business that buys a multi-million-pound printing press having multi-million-pound  profits are low, so it will end up having a loss to carry forward. Such a business will get benefit in the fullness of time, but we will have restricted how much of its losses it can carry forward and use—if it is a business of a certain size, it can offset only up to £5 million. Do we really mean that now? Or do we mean that if a business has spent a load of capital and generated a big loss that is carrying forward, it should be able to relieve that as early as possible when it makes a profit? Do we need to revisit some of those restrictions we have introduced for sensible reasons in the past?
I urge the Minister to commission some work, now that he has made this big and expensive change, on what the whole regime should look like. Do we need all those hundreds of pages of rules and all the compliance effort that has to go in, for what will probably now be relatively small amounts of tax relief at stake in the grand scheme of things?
I wish to discuss a few other clauses. I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill’s anti-avoidance clauses. It is absolutely right to extend the punishments we give individuals who recklessly promote tax avoidance schemes that they ought to know do not work and in many cases do know do not work but carry on trying to sell. It is entirely reasonable to have the sanction of being able to disbar them from being a company director if they carry on doing that. There has been a lot of encouragement for the Government to go further on duties to prevent all manner of economic crimes, so I fully welcome these things.
In Committee, we could perhaps think about whether we are sure we have drafted that measure perfectly. A lot of tax advisers work through limited liability partnerships, but where someone is a member of a limited liability partnership that is promoting unacceptable tax avoidance, they will not be caught by these rules because they are not a director of a company that is doing it. Therefore, such a person will not be disbarred from remaining as the designated member of an LLP, because they are not a director of a company. Is that what we mean? Given that LLPs and their members have to be registered with Companies House, should we not broaden that sanction out to catch as many people as possible? Perhaps the Minister would think about whether we could make some extension to this, to ensure that we are catching everyone engaging in this industry, not just a small subset of it.
Clause 21 has further amendments on pillar two; at times, I think I am the only Back Bencher who supports pillar two. I will continue to support it but, as I said a year ago, the rules are fiendishly complicated. Anyone who tries to read clause 21 and the schedules that come with it will realise they contain an almost impenetrable set of rules for a relatively small number of situations, in relation to a simple principle about subsidiaries in tax havens that are paying less than 15% tax having their tax topped up to 15%, in order to discourage tax havens and the artificial movement of profit.
We have ended up with a hugely complicated shadow tax regime that every company with subsidiaries around the world will have to apply to every subsidiary they have. Even if they are in a respectable country with tax rates even higher than ours, they will have to work out whether they have accidentally managed to trip themselves below that rate. That cannot be what we intend, so can  we try to find a way to filter out most of this work, so that we can catch the guilty but not make life miserable for the innocent?
With those few remarks, I welcome the Bill. The provisions are entirely sensible and I look forward to supporting them. I will have to vote against the SNP amendment, because I want the Bill to proceed today.

Sarah Olney: The Liberal Democrats do not support the Bill. It is a deception from the Government after years of unfair tax hikes on hard-working families.
The Conservatives talk about tax cuts, but there are no tax cuts. The autumn statement maintains the Government’s unfair stealth taxes through the freezing of tax thresholds, dragging millions of people into a higher band or into paying tax for the first time. Changes to national insurance rates will not even touch the sides after years of tax hikes and spiralling mortgages. Thanks to the Conservatives’ decision to freeze tax thresholds, next year someone on a typical salary of £35,000 will pay an extra £400 in tax, and someone earning a middle income of £65,000 will pay an additional £1,200. Meanwhile, the typical mortgage will go up by £220 per month. Nobody is better off after years of this Conservative Government.
Worse still was the deafening silence on health in the autumn statement. The Government should be using any additional tax revenue to tackle the crisis in our NHS, to give people the quality of care they deserve and to let more people return to work to grow our economy. We cannot fix the economy without fixing the NHS. OBR growth forecasts have been halved, largely because people are waiting for NHS treatment. It is a no-brainer that we need to treat the millions of people on NHS waiting lists and allow them to return to work, but this Conservative Government simply do not care.
The Bill offers nothing to households struggling amid the cost of living crisis. It fails to introduce a proper windfall tax on the super-profits of oil and gas producers. That revenue could be used to fund energy support for the most vulnerable, such as doubling the warm home discount and launching a proper home insulation scheme. It could also be used to invest in British farmers, to bring down food prices for the long term.
The Bill fails to reverse tax cuts for big banks, a measure that could fund support for vulnerable mortgage holders and renters. Worst of all, it takes none of the vital steps we need to grow the UK economy, such as launching an industrial strategy, reforming business rates and the apprenticeship levy, and reducing trade barriers for small businesses.
As other hon. Members have highlighted, the creative industries are a major driver of the UK economy and the Liberal Democrats are committed to ensuring their continued success. The Finance Bill has some implications for theatre tax relief, which plays a crucial role in enabling the development of new theatre productions. UK Theatre and the Society of London Theatre have raised concerns to the Treasury about these implications, which could damage how this essential relief operates. I urge the Treasury to work with representatives from the creative sectors to address these concerns and provide clear guidance on changes to the administration of theatre tax relief introduced in this Bill.
While the Liberal Democrats support of certain measures within the Bill, such as the extension of full expensing, we cannot support any legislation that arises from such a deceptive and unjust autumn statement. Ultimately, the Office for Budget Responsibility says living standards are forecast to be 3.5% lower in 2024-25 than their pre-pandemic level, which is the largest reduction in real living standards since official records began in the 1950s. Households across the country are crying out for real support from this Government, as well as action on the cost of living crisis and investment in our NHS, but all we have heard is more stale announcements that show just how out of touch the Conservative Government are.

Nigel Evans: I now have to announce the results of today’s deferred Divisions.
On the draft Representation of the People (Overseas Electors etc.) (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023, the Ayes were 325 and the Noes were 154, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Regulations 2023, the Ayes were 464 and the Noes were 11, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Representation of the People (Overseas Electors etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, the Ayes were 324 and the Noes were 186, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]

Priti Patel: I praise and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on bringing forward the Bill. As we have previously discussed, it will implement the important measures set out in the autumn statement.
We have already debated some of the key measures that were included in the National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Bill, which was considered in the other place yesterday. I do not want to go over the arguments on fiscal drag and lower taxes, as I have set out my views previously, but I commend the Government for bringing forward those measures quickly and in the right way, as they will go some way to easing the tax pressures the public are feeling.
My right hon. Friends on the Front Bench are well versed in my views on the tax burden, so I will not go on about how about I feel about that or measures we can bring in going forward. However, I would like to press them to ensure that we think about long-term provisions and that the next Finance Bill goes further by raising thresholds for income tax, including for higher-rate taxpayers, and for national insurance.
It is worth noting that in the Budget after the general election of summer 2015, the then Chancellor outlined plans to increase the tax-free threshold to the equivalent of 30 hours’ pay at the national living wage. The new £11.44 national living wage rate for 2024 commences in April, so if the tax-free threshold rose to cover 30 hours per week next year, that would equate to £17,000 to £18,000, rather than remaining at £12,570 through to 2028, as currently planned. I press my right hon. Friends to keep that under review—thankfully, all tax measures are under review—and to prioritise uplifts to those thresholds, because we believe in enabling people to keep more of their earnings.
At the same time, when we see GDP figures not growing as fast as they could, as we have today, it is important to focus on how we can grow the economy much more, and with that people’s incomes. We want to see more growth in those GDP figures, but they represent the impact of high interest rates and what they mean for inflation. High interest and inflation have placed a burden on businesses and households. The Bill outlines reductions in business taxation that are well timed and well placed but, as ever, they need to be kept under review. Businesses grow the economy by employing more people, which helps economic growth, and that is the space where we, as a Government and a country, want to be.
It will not surprise my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that I wish to speak to certain clauses, as I have spoken about clauses on business taxes in the past. I want to focus on the provisions in clause 21 and schedule 12 of the Bill, on pillar two and the global minimum corporation tax measures that we are adopting. I have been on record about this previously, but the Minister is also well aware of my long-standing concerns over the implementation of pillar two measures. Binding ourselves to pillar two undermines our fiscal sovereignty and risks deterring investment into our country. I labour this point because we have just seen the publication of our GDP growth forecasts. Obviously there will be revisions in our growth forecasts, even by financial institutions, and we should be mindful of that, but this measure undermines our competitiveness. It is known that some 130 countries have signed up to pillar two, but, unlike the UK, barely a quarter of them are implementing it at the end of the year. Given our economic backdrop and GDP forecasts, I would rather see a delay in the implementation of this measure.
A written parliamentary answer earlier this month shows that just 30 countries are implementing this measure at the same time as we are. They will be followed by Japan in April, and then Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Jersey, Hong Kong and Singapore from January 2025. We also know that the US, our big economic ally, is not likely to implement the measure, so by pressing ahead with this fiscal measure, we are basically limiting the scope that we give ourselves—oxygen, basically—to develop and grow.
When the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 went through Parliament last year, it contained more than 150 clauses, which were spread over two parts, with a further five schedules, covering 170 pages in total. Many of us remember carrying those weighty tomes into the Chamber and flicking through all the pages. There was a large and complex change in tax laws. But despite that legislation being passed in the summer, this Bill makes even further changes to pillar two and the domestic top-up levels. Clause 21 and schedule 12, which cover those changes, span 55 pages and include multiple amendments to the Finance (No. 2) Act passed only a few months ago. I recall saying that the amendments alone would generate more complexity to the system. I say politely to those on the Front Bench that the 55 pages here point to the complex nature of the matter. The fact that we are amending something that went through the House not that long ago says it all.
No impact assessment has been provided of these measures, which give effect to the accounting periods beginning on or after 31 December 2023. Companies  and partnerships will be impacted by the changes coming into effect in less than three weeks’ time, even though the Bill will not receive Royal Assent until next year. We must be cognisant of the burdens that we are again putting on businesses. I am no fan of accountants, but by putting more burdens on to businesses, we are increasing their dependency on accountants and on process, which we should be freeing them from. I ask the Minister to provide us with further details as to why these changes are needed when the previous Finance Act was passed only earlier this year, and with an impact assessment  of them.
I would like to understand the merits of the global minimum income tax, and I hope that, in the same way that all tax is under review, Ministers will consider removing all the provisions from our statute book in due course, because other countries will not follow suit or are delaying implementing some of these measures.
I wish to comment on clause 2, relating to research and development tax credits. It merges the current R&D expenditure credit with the small and medium-sized enterprises scheme. These tax credits help and support businesses to invest and take risks, and, importantly, to innovate and grow, set up jobs and employ people. I have previously raised the concerns that some businesses have about the complexity of claiming them and the processes that they experience. I am aware of many businesses that have spent more than a year having their claims investigated, with multiple rounds of questions and inquiries from HMRC officials. There are many live cases, which I will not reflect on now, but previous Treasury Ministers have committed to hold discussions on them.

Gavin Williamson: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. In Staffordshire, which is a manufacturing powerhouse, R&D tax credits are vital in driving productivity in manufacturing businesses. Does she agree that it would be good to hear those on the Front Bench make a commitment to reviewing and slimming down that scheme, so that it actually gets those small businesses embracing it and getting the investment that we need?

Priti Patel: My right hon. Friend is spot on. The scheme was set up for a very good reason, which is, effectively, to support entrepreneurism and innovation and to grow businesses. Now we are seeing those businesses saddled with bureaucracy and burdens. What is worrying is the number of small businesses that have been under investigation by HMRC for over a year, as that is now having a detrimental impact on their performance. As a representative not just of Witham, but of Essex as a whole, I can see businesses that have now come together to make wider representations to HMRC and the Treasury about that. I hope that those on the Front Bench will learn from some of these experiences and look at how we can evolve and adapt the process, so that the scheme can revert back to its original premise of supporting businesses. As I have said many times, the only way is Essex. Essex is a county of entrepreneurs and they are the ones who are feeling the pressures.
In his summing up, will the Minister outline the operational aspect of these changes? In particular, what interactions is he having with HMRC about some of the  cases that have been under investigation for more than a year, and the impact that that is having on those smaller businesses? At the end of the day, they are SMEs that are not able to grow their businesses because of these inquiries and investigations. Naturally, that has an impact on the profits that they can then reinvest in their businesses.
I also wish to make a few comments on air passenger duty and the provisions in clause 24. Many of us in this House have spoken about air passenger duty for many years. I have been a long-standing campaigner for reform of this tax to encourage and support economic growth. It is ironic that we are having this debate on a day when the GDP figures have come out as they have. I believe in globalisation—in the sense of more global competition—and in our being more open to the world when it comes to those global dynamic markets.
We should also make travel more competitive and affordable for families, especially as they are struggling with the impact of the cost of living. Reforms that have taken place under previous Conservative Chancellors have been welcome. I query the small increase in the APD rates for 2024-25 in the Bill. Back in the summer, in his speech on net zero, the Prime Minister pledged to scrap plans for new taxes on flying, but the Bill provides for an increase in APD rates, ranging from 50p to £6 per flight. Although they are small increases, they are still increases. They are lower than the rate of inflation planned for and assumed in previous Government statements and OBR forecasts, which is to be welcomed. Therefore, any clarification on what is happening with APD going forward is welcome. Again, that is important for certainty and also for forecast purposes.
On the subject of air travel, I am disappointed that the autumn statement and this Finance Bill do not contain reforms to end the so-called tourism tax. I was one of the few Members to speak on that during the Humble Address debate. If we look at London, our great city, we can see that, at this time of the year, it is a magnet for tourism and for people coming from overseas. It is great for our businesses, great for our country and great for our brands—our British brands and our small brands. Our tourism sector and shopping and retail businesses are losing out to their European competitors as a result of the removal of the VAT refund and the VAT-free shopping and arrangements that had previously been in place. I think that we can reintroduce those measures. In the last debate, those on the Front Bench committed to looking at dynamic modelling in this area, and some external reviews of the potential revenue base. It would be a boost for business and jobs, and we should be looking at all measures to boost economic growth and competition. There are plenty of reports and studies out there. I do not want to labour the point; I know that those on the Front Bench will be aware of them.
It is winter, and we are heading towards a spring fiscal statement. Since 2010, the Government have consistently kept fuel duty down, cutting and freezing rates. This is an opportune moment to remind the public what the Government have achieved on that alone, because it is very important. Families, businesses and households depend upon it, and I very much hope that we will continue to stand up for the measures that we have put in place historically. I urge the Government to commit to maintaining the 5p reduction, and perhaps even to go further where there is fiscal headroom.  Finding fiscal headroom is difficult, but sometimes—I say this as a former Treasury Minister—it can be found when we really look for it.
As the Bill passes through the House and is subject to further scrutiny, I know that my colleagues on the Front Bench and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is dedicated to dealing with the difficult fiscal challenges that we face, will be focused on unleashing future growth by reducing taxes and, importantly, empowering the very businesses that employ people and keep people in their jobs for long-term economic security.

Robert Syms: I agree with a lot of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) said. I was in this House for 13 years of Labour Government. Twice a year, we had the autumn statement and Budget, and all taxes were reviewed. In not one of those fiscal statements did they change the arrangement for non-doms. Why? Because it brings in more money. I am therefore shocked at the criticism from those on the Labour Front Bench of their Chancellors when in government. What we have with the Opposition is the politics of the magic money pot. The magic money pot is called non-doms, and the Opposition think that it will pay for everything. It will not; because such people are internationally mobile, they will move. The best things to tax are things that do not move, such as property. People can move, and we will not get sufficient money in as a result.
The Government have done a lot of good things. Putting up the triple lock is the right decision to look after pensioners, but those who pay tax might, because their pension will go up, pay more tax. Putting up the living wage is a good thing, because we want a higher-paid economy, but as lower-paid workers’ pay goes up, they pay more tax. It is one of the features of the modern world that those in the most successful and highest-paid economies tend to pay more tax. Although the overall tax burden, because of the freeze, has gone up, we need to reverse that, and we have started the process in the autumn statement.
The Government have set out a good long-term plan, which is essentially based on increasing the incentives for business to invest. We have a problem in Britain on productivity. One way of getting productivity up is to get pay up and investment in machinery and equipment up. If we can do that, we can pay for the public services that we all want, on both sides of the House, in terms of better education, a better health service and better outcomes. However, that requires getting productivity up. One of the problems since 2008 has been that Britain has struggled with productivity. Whatever we do, whether it involves incentives, higher pay, or credits for research and development, if it gets productivity up, that has to be a good thing.
I welcome an awful lot of what is in the autumn statement, but we should not look at it as one event; it is part of a series of events brought in by the Chancellor that mean that our national debt is falling over the plan. Our yearly deficit looks like it will be in the 3% range rather than the 4% range. Even the trade gap looks like it is improving. Our economic situation does not look too bad, and when we look over the channel to the EU and the eurozone, our problems seem rather less than theirs, with some of those countries going into recession.
I, too, saw today’s GDP figures. I would caution against any flash estimate of GDP. The monthly figures bounce around. I spent six weeks on a Finance Bill Committee during the days of the coalition when every day those on the Labour Front Bench talked about the double-dip recession, which was revised away six months later. The key point is to do the right things for the economy, get productivity up and get the economy growing, and the other things will come right. They will certainly come right when a lot of data is in. Even the three-monthly GDP data is based on something like a quarter of the stats. It is constantly updated over years and months. We should not be too fixated on short-term figures.
One reason I think the economy will grow over the next 12 months is that living standards have gone from falling to rising. That means that ultimately the British consumer ought to come to the rescue of the British economy and get it growing, if the Government can keep a stable economic situation, and pay continues to outstrip inflation, which I am very optimistic about. Brent crude has fallen under $75, which means that gas prices are now barely above where they were before the invasion of Ukraine. That has improved since the autumn statement. Petrol prices are falling again. This morning, the 10-year bonds interest rate was under 4%. That is a sign that the pressure now is to lower interest rates. The overall Government economic policy is not only to balance the books and reduce taxation in terms of national insurance, which will help 29 million people, but to get interest rates down so that, when people come to refix their mortgages, they can do so at a more reasonable rate. Good progress has been made, but we will not be free with one bound; it will take Budgets, statements and steady persistence. That means not giving in to every request for extra spending, however worthy they are individually. I commend those on the Treasury Bench and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has put together a good package, and I look forward to what will happen in March.
Before I sit down, I will pay tribute to a Labour Chancellor, Lord Alistair Darling of Roulanish, who was a very modest but very competent man. He faced what would be anybody’s nightmare in the Treasury, with banks collapsing. I think that history will treat him well for his management of the economy at that very difficult time. He is missed by this House and I am sure the other place will miss him too.

Nigel Evans: I echo that tribute to Alistair Darling. I was in the House with him for many years. He was a great politician and an excellent Chancellor of the Exchequer.
David Simmonds will make the last Back-Bench contribution. We will then move on to the wind-ups. I anticipate at least one Division.

David Simmonds: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, having been here to listen to some incredibly insightful and useful contributions from so many colleagues. I will endeavour not simply to repeat those excellent points, but to focus on some additional ones that have been raised in the course of the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin),  the Chair of the Treasury Committee, touched on something that is not in the autumn statement, but that I am sure those of us on the Government Benches will wish to seek further assurances about from Ministers: the tax on education proposed by the Opposition.
I represent a constituency in which there are five independent fee-paying schools, which have certainly been in contact with me to raise their concerns about the Opposition’s proposal. Every secondary school that serves my constituency, including the state-funded ones, is an independent school, because they are all academies. Every special educational needs and disability school that serves my constituency is an independent school, including those that have never been part of the state sector but came into existence as charitable organisations with a view to providing specialist SEND services. There are even stables in this country that provide equine therapy to non-verbal autistic children that, because they serve more than one child, are registered as independent schools with Ofsted.
The implications of the proposed policy, which it is said would raise £1.7 billion, would be additional VAT on fees paid by local authorities up and down the land and, more significantly from the Exchequer’s perspective, to bring a huge amount of VAT within scope of being reclaimed by that wide variety of institutions. I hope that Ministers will state with great clarity that it remains the policy of this Government that we support the excellence in our incredibly diverse independent sector, which includes both SEND and state-funded education.
We have been challenged to say what has been the biggest achievement of the Government in the past 13 years. For me, it is the thing that forms the backdrop to this Finance Bill and to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s autumn statement: the transformation in the number of people in our country who earn their own living through work. The Office for National Statistics data shows an incredibly clear trend in youth unemployment. Under the last Conservative Government, it was falling and falling; once Labour took office, it began to rise. Since this Government took office in 2010, the rate of youth unemployment has halved. That makes an incredible difference to both the financial wellbeing and, most importantly, the mental and physical health of our young people. It gives people prospects. It gives people hope. It means all our citizens have a stake in the economy of our country.
The same trends are replicated elsewhere. I remember what it was like as an employer trying to engage with the incredibly complicated systems under the last Labour Government, in which so many people were disincentivised to work—especially women who wanted to work part time and fit that around bringing up children. The changes in policy—particularly universal credit and really good childcare offers—have transformed the ability of people in this country to access the workforce over that period. While that has not always meant that those individuals are much better off, the fact that they are able to earn their own living and take pride in having a stake in our economy is incredibly important.
There are particular reasons why this Bill strikes me as important. I would like to develop the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) about tax avoidance stop notices. I have a number of constituents who have been affected by the loan  charge over the past few years, and it particularly concerns me to hear from them that, in some cases, they are still being contacted by businesses trying to sign them up to schemes of the kind that have already got them into significant financial trouble.
I enormously welcome the fact that the Government are taking steps to make sure that that behaviour can be brought to an end and that we do not see any more of our constituents trapped in financial situations not of their own making as a result of the marketing of organisations that should know that, while what they are doing is theoretically and perhaps technically within the law because a loan is free of tax, if it is not a genuine loan and not to be repaid during the person’s lifetime, it should be considered part of their remuneration for the purposes of taxation. I welcome the step that the Bill makes in that respect.
The second thing I particularly welcome is the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge. I have heard from a very large number of professionals across my constituency, especially in the NHS, but also in other types of businesses in the private sector. The impact of the lifetime allowance has been the loss of highly experienced staff from those organisations. These are generally people in their 50s and 60s who are at the peak of productivity and have an enormous amount to give, but face a financial cliff edge and are forced by that limit to make a decision to leave a career that, in many cases, they love and enjoy and in which they have much to contribute. In the NHS in particular, the change will enable experienced GPs, surgeons and consultants to return to the workplace or continue working at a higher level than they would have been able to in other circumstances. For that reason, it will benefit our public services enormously, both in productivity and by ensuring that waiting lists, which are already beginning to fall, come down much faster.
Let me turn to some of the measures designed to support our small businesspeople and the self-employed. In politics, the loudest voices in debates about the economy are often those of large corporations with substantial, well-funded public affairs departments. However, we also know from the ONS that around 70% of people employed in the UK economy are in an enterprise with fewer than five staff. The voices of those small businesses, which are the bedrock of our economy, are not heard collectively as often as the voices of big international businesses.
The measures to simplify and reduce national insurance for small businesspeople and the self-employed are enormously welcome, and not just because of the money that they put in people’s pockets—it is important for us to remember that point. We heard some scoffing and comments of “big deal” from the Opposition when the reductions in class 2 national insurance contributions were mentioned, but the reductions represent about a quarter of what most households in the UK spend on Christmas, or a significant contribution to a child’s school uniform, a summer holiday or maintaining the car. All of those things make a small difference individually and a big one collectively. They send a message to our lower-income but entrepreneurial people that we are a Government who are on their side and keen to get off their backs.
I will finish with two suggestions. The first—to develop again a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire—is to tackle some of the cliff edges in our tax system. The abolition of the lifetime  allowance charge is one example of that. It is clear that around the £100,000 income level—that is a significant sum of money, but one typically earned by many of the public sector professionals on whom services such as the NHS, GP practices and schools depend—many of the benefits of extra earnings begin to be withdrawn. The situation in which two earners on £99,000 a year, with a joint income of £198,000, can continue to enjoy the benefits of tax-free childcare, but if one earner goes to £100,001 a year, those benefits are completely withdrawn, creates a significant marginal tax rate for professionals with children.
I have heard from a number of constituents who work in public sector bodies, particularly the NHS, that they have had to scale back their hours or decline to take on additional waiting list initiative work funded by the Government because the impact of that cliff edge is so financially significant for them. Of course, we see the same impact at that point from the pensions taper. I suggest to my Front-Bench colleagues that, as we think about the public sector productivity strategy, we need to consider how to take out some of those cliff edges so that the people we are asking to work and contribute more, and who are in a position to make a transformational difference to some of our public services, have good financial incentives to do so.
Finally, the OBR has been mentioned a few times in the debate. There is a degree of controversy about whether it is the correct body to provide a view about the sound financial management of our national finances. Having spent a lot of time in the local government sector, it is striking to me that it is a legal requirement for councillors making decisions in any of our local authorities to have before them the financial and legal implications of the decision, whereas in this House we usually decide on policies in a crowded debate with a big row about what we should do and then, sometimes months later, have a scantily attended debate at which the financial implications of the policy are debated and agreed. We do not take the financial implications and the policy decision together. I suggest that Ministers should consider whether, in order to emphasise the sound financial management approach of a Conservative Government, in addition to statements such as those about compliance with the requirements of the European convention on human rights, we should seek to ensure that every Government policy and paper on which this House makes a decision states what the financial implications of that decision might be.
Coming back to the point about VAT on school fees, I will make a forecast: should there be a change of Government, we will find ourselves back in the position that we were in under Gordon Brown. The announcement will be, “We want to spend the extra £1.7 billion that we have assumed, but we can’t actually raise that in taxes because the policy doesn’t work in practice, so we’ll borrow it,” and the £28 billion will become £29.7 billion. In addition, the non-dom money will not be forthcoming, so the Government will say, “We’ll assume how much that might be when we get around to tackling that and add that on to the borrowing as well.” That is the reason why under Gordon Brown we spent something like 10% more in every year than we raised in tax revenue. As a measure to prevent future Governments from running our finances into the ground again, let us make sure that we have that clarity of financial rigour in the  decision making of Parliament, so that when Members cast our vote, we all understand the implications for taxpayers of the policies on which we are making decisions.

Nigel Evans: I call Tulip Siddiq to begin the wind-ups.

Tulip Siddiq: This afternoon, we have been told that the measures in the Finance Bill and the wider autumn statement will deliver the growth that our economy urgently needs. Unfortunately, our leading economic institutions and economists do not seem to agree. Despite the Conservatives’ attempts to distract attention with headline figures, the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has described their numbers as “sort of made up”. The Chancellor wants us to believe he is cutting taxes to give people back more of their pay packets, but the reality—as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) helpfully clarified for the Government—is an average tax rise for working people of £1,200, with nearly everyone who pays national insurance left with a bigger tax bill next year.
The Chancellor may want gratitude and praise for his recent interventions, but the reality is that growth forecasts have been cut for next year, the year after and the year after that. Meanwhile, the Bank of England is forecasting zero growth before 2025. The Conservative party might want us to believe that that is due to events outside its control and that things are starting to improve, but we learned just today from the latest GDP figures that growth fell in October, demonstrating that our economy is still going backwards despite all the warm words we have heard from Ministers. Taxes up, debt skyrocketing and the biggest hit to living standards ever recorded—that is the legacy of 13 years of Conservative government, however much they try to escape from the reality of their record. Only the Labour party has a clear plan to grow our economy by boosting wages, bringing down bills and making working people in all parts of the country better off.
As we have set out, there are a number of specific measures in the Bill that we support and, indeed, have long called for, so we will not oppose the Bill’s Second Reading. For example, we welcome the Government’s decision to heed the calls of industry and make full expensing for businesses permanent, because we know that if the UK is to turn a corner and we are to drive growth in the economy, we need to address our chronic lack of business investment.
While we wait for Committee stage to examine in great detail the decision to consolidate research and development tax relief schemes, it is worth noting that that is the latest of eight separate changes to the R&D regime that this Government have made since the last election. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North took us on a comprehensive tour of the constantly shifting tax policy we have seen from the Tories during this Parliament. It is now clear that by chopping and changing their business taxation and reliefs, from the annual investment allowance to the short-lived  super-deduction, the Government have kept businesses guessing and not given them the confidence they need to grow.
The measures set out today do not scratch the surface when it comes to undoing the years of uncertainty for business and investors, while industry is crying out for stability and a long-term plan. The truth is that, despite the words of Conservative Members, the UK is now lagging behind our international competitors when it comes to private sector investment as a share of GDP, at a time when we cannot afford to drag our feet. It is Labour who will address this head-on with a comprehensive plan to boost business investment, working with our businesses to expand and compete with rivals in the US, Europe and Asia.
It is clear from this Finance Bill and the recent autumn statement that this Government lack the imagination, leadership and appetite to transform our economy after 13 years in power. Without that stability, certainty and long-term plan, our businesses will be left unequipped to deliver the growth that we so urgently need at this time. If we do not deliver that growth, the poorest in our society will pay the price as their living standards stagnate. The Government may want us to believe that our economy is turning a corner, but back in reality, millions of people are struggling to make ends meet.
The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) asked what the greatest achievement of this Government is. Frankly, I think that is quite a dangerous question, but I will try to answer it for him anyway. Was it crashing the economy, or producing the shortest serving Prime Minister in the history of our country? Was it the tax burden being at its highest since the war, household incomes that will be 3.5% lower next year than before the pandemic or, my personal favourite, the latest growth forecasts showing us plummeting and plummeting even further? Was it—shall I turn to my own constituency—people having to make the choice between turning on the heating and eating? That is the reality facing people in the country after 13 years of a Conservative Government.

Drew Hendry: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Tulip Siddiq: I have one line of my speech left, but I will give way.

Drew Hendry: If, as the shadow Minister says, and I agree, the Bill is this bad, why is she voting for it?

Tulip Siddiq: We are not actually voting. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member is slightly misguided, as we are not voting.
There are specific measures that we support, but, overall, we do not support the economic plan of this Government. If the Government are so sure about their economic plan, why do they not take their opinions to the public? Why do they not call a general election, and we will see who is smiling and smirking after that?

Gareth Davies: What a great pleasure it is to close this debate on the Finance Bill on behalf of the Government. I want to thank my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who is new in post, and to recognise the work of his predecessor and my constituency neighbour in Lincolnshire,  my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who carried out a great deal of work on this Finance Bill in the run-up to the autumn statement.
I will address a number of the points raised in this very good debate—it was lacking on quantity, but high on quality from a number of sources—but before I reflect on the comments, let me reflect on the Bill. Be in no doubt but that this Finance Bill will mean that companies will pay less tax if they invest more. It will simplify and strengthen tax reliefs to bolster innovation, and it makes the tax system fairer and more secure. Taken together, the measures contained in it will strengthen our economy and create more opportunities for more rewarding work in every corner of this country.
I will now turn to the comments made by a number of colleagues. I will start with my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), the Chair of the Treasury Committee, who has carried out significant work on the tax simplification programme with her Committee. The Government are clear that we want the tax system to be simpler and fairer, and to support growth. As she mentioned, the Financial Secretary has written to her just this week setting out the progress we are making on simplification. This autumn statement, and the Finance Bill in particular, has a number of measures, not least the capital allowances and the R&D expenditure credit consolidation. This a step in the right direction, but we are not complacent and we will continue to go further.
I was heartened to hear cross-party support for full expensing. That is in the context of the lowest headline rate of corporation tax in the G7, but the autumn statement announcement, and the provision in the Bill, is a £10 billion-a-year effective tax cut, called for by the IFS, the CBI, the IOD, Make UK, and many other businesses across the country. It is also in conjunction—this is not in the Bill—with a business rates package that will see a freeze for more than 90% of rate payers in this country.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) made a comment about the oil and gas sector. Let me be clear: this Government have resolute support for our domestic oil and gas sector, and its 210,000 jobs. She called for a “proper tax” on oil and gas companies, and I can tell her that we already have one of the highest rates of windfall tax in the world. The energy price levy strikes the right balance between providing support for families and businesses through an energy crisis—namely through the energy price guarantee, which effectively paid 50% of people’s energy bills—while also encouraging investment to bolster our energy security. Conservative Members want to see the sector’s profits reinvested to support our domestic economy, our jobs, and our domestic energy security. Investment allowances within the EPL help to do that, and the energy security investment mechanism, which I announced in June, will help to provide banks with certainty in their modelling as they provide financing to the oil and gas sector, and as they are part of the transition to net zero.
Along with SNP Members, the hon. Member also said that she would like an increase in tax on banks, but she failed to mention that tax on banks has increased in recent times from 27% to 28%. She failed to mention that the tax revenue contribution from banks has increased significantly from £17 billion in 2010, to more than £33 billion today. That helps to pay for our NHS, our  education, our defence, and many other public services that we all rely on. We want our banking system to be internationally competitive, and to keep the 1 million jobs that it employs stable and secure.
Many Opposition colleagues have mentioned living standards, and they are right. Conservative Members care deeply about that issue. That is why as part of the autumn statement, we increased the state pension by 8.5% as part of the triple lock which, by the way, has brought 200,000 pensioners out of poverty since it was introduced by a Conservative Prime Minister. We have also uprated benefits by 6.7%, and uprated the local housing allowance, which will benefit 1.6 million households across the country. That was on the back of a £289 billion welfare budget. Under this Government 400,000 children have been brought out of absolute poverty, and we have seen the Government step in with significant support through two global shocks of covid and the energy price spike, with £500 billion of support to get people through.

Drew Hendry: Will the Minister give way?

Gareth Davies: I will not give way. We are going to proceed I’m afraid; the hon. Gentleman has had his chance.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) who has great consistency when it comes to reducing the tax burden. She has made clear her views on our tax system, and we agree with her. We have a keenness to bring taxes down, but we will do it in a responsible way that is in line with sustainable public finances. She also made clear her consistent campaign on pillar 2, and we are very alive to her concerns. I am pleased that the Chancellor recently met and wrote to her, following the two fiscal statements. I understand her concerns about sovereignty, and I assure her that the pillar 2 provisions do not impact on sovereignty or indeed on competitiveness. The provisions in the Bill are technical amendments that we will discuss in more detail as it goes into Committee.
Finally I thank, as always, my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) for his positivity about our economy, which does not always get reported. For me, his critical point was about looking at the long-term performance of the economy, not just at the provisions we are putting in place. Instead of looking month by month by month, we should look at long-term provision.
In conclusion, in January this year, the Prime Minister set out his priorities for the Government. Three of them were economic and, since then, we have seen our inflation cut in half and our economy is expected to grow in every year of the OBR’s forecast period. That is half a decade of uninterrupted growth. Because we are reducing borrowing, debt is now forecast to fall. Put simply, we have turned a corner, and it is because of the actions of this Government, this Prime Minister and this Chancellor.
This is a Conservative approach through supply-side reform, and it is in stark contrast to the Labour party’s debt-driven ambitions. We know that its plans to borrow some £28 billion every year for green initiatives will put at risk the great progress that we and the British public have achieved. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has issued a stark warning for Labour’s plans. It said they will increase inflation and drive up interest  rates, leading to more debt, higher rates, higher inflation, fewer jobs and more tax. That is the Labour party’s playbook. We cannot let that happen, and we will not.
We want an economy driven by enterprise, and by workers and by businesses throughout this country who push and strive, making us more competitive abroad and resilient at home. We want a tax system that pushes up businesses and workers who want to succeed, not that pulls them down when they do succeed. The autumn statement was a statement for growth, investment, work and reward. The measures in the Bill will deliver much of that, so I strongly commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 46, Noes 296.
Question accordingly negatived.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 62(2)), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 54.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.

Finance Bill: Programme

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7))
That the following provisions shall apply to the Finance Bill:

Committal

(1) The following shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House—
(a) Clause 1 (capital allowances: permanent full expensing etc for expenditure on plant or machinery);
(b) Clause 2 and Schedule 1 (new regime for research and development carried out by companies);
(c) Clause 21 and Schedule 12 (Pillar Two);
(d) Clause 25 (rebate on heavy oil and certain bioblends used for heating);
(e) Clause 27 (interpretation of VAT and excise law);
(f) Clauses 31 to 34 and Schedule 13 (tax evasion and avoidance);
(g) any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of the Clauses
and Schedules mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (f).
(2) The remainder of the Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Committee of the whole House
(3) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in one day.
(4) The proceedings—
(a) shall be taken on that day in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and
(b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

  

  Proceedings
  Time for conclusion of proceedings


  Clauses 1 and 2 and Schedule 1; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses and that Schedule2 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill.
  2 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill.


  Clause 21 and Schedule 12; Clauses 31 and 32 and Schedule 13; Clauses 33 and 34; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses and those Schedules
  4 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill.


  Clauses 25 and 27; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses 6 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill.
  6 hours after the commencement of proceedings

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee etc

(5) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 18 January 2024.
(6) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
(7) When the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by the Public Bill Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill shall be proceeded with as if it had been reported as a whole to the House from the Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading

(8) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(9) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

Programming committee

(10) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.—(Scott Mann.)
Question agreed to.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Local Government

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
That the draft York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2023, which was laid before this House on 7 November, be approved.—(Scott Mann.)
Question agreed to.

Petition - Opposition to parking charges in Audlem, Cheshire

Edward Timpson: The petition states:
The petition of the residents of Audlem, Cheshire in the Eddisbury County constituency,
Declares their opposition to the introduction of parking charges to public car parks in the village, and the coterminous reduction in its on-street parking capacity, pursuant to a change.org petition of 1,808 signatures opposing the same; further that the petitioners believe that such measures would threaten the vibrancy of Audlem as a countryside business, tourism, events and infrastructure hub for residents and visitors, and reduce access for vulnerable service users in a rural area which is readily accessible only by private car and one regular bus service.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure that such proposals are only developed and deliberated on following rigorous and renewed local public and economic consultation, having due regard to Government policies supporting rural high streets, services, businesses, communities, and healthcare, amongst others.
[P002889]

Petition - Proposed West of Ifield development

Henry Smith: This petition to stop the West of Ifield development is supported by over 7,300 local people. Homes England has put forward proposals for up to 10,000 housing units on a greenfield site that is prone to flooding, and these proposals would put intolerable pressure on already strained local public infrastructure such as highways and doctors’ surgeries. The petitioners therefore
“urge the House of Commons to ensure the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities work with Homes England to ensure these proposals are withdrawn.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Crawley
Declares that proposals put forward by Homes England for up to 10,000 housing units on land to the west of Ifield are unsustainable, and would see the loss of greenfield sites and intolerable pressure on local public infrastructure
The petitioners therefore urge the House of Commons to ensure the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities work with Homes England to ensure these proposals are withdrawn
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002890]

Petition - Ulverston Library

Simon Fell: I rise to present this petition on the urgent need to reopen Ulverston library in my Barrow and Furness constituency. Since Ulverston library’s closure due to an electrical fault, the amazing library team have done a remarkable job in setting up two pop-up libraries but, as the 600-plus signatures on this petition attest, local people want a full service to be restored as soon as possible. Our library enables far more than just the lending of books and is a true community hub. The petitioners therefore
“request that the House of Commons urge the Government to help ensure that Ulverston has a full library service restored as soon as possible.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Barrow and Furness,
Declares that the Ulverston Library offers a vital service to a local people from lending books to supporting literacy, to enabling community groups, and bringing local people together; further that Ulverston Library must be re-opened as a matter of urgency.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to help ensure that Ulverston has a full library service restored as soon as possible.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002891]

Flooding: River Severn Catchment Area

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Scott Mann.)

Daniel Kawczynski: I now consider flooding to be the single biggest barrier to my Shrewsbury constituency’s economic development. We are now flooding on an annual basis, and the sheer misery, damage and destruction that takes place in my town every single year is causing my council, local authorities, businesses and homeowners a great deal of financial stress.
In February 2019, when the Coleham area of Shrewsbury flooded, I invited the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), to visit. I will never forget the day he went around Shrewsbury with me to meet many businesses—butchers, hairdressers and cafés—and homeowners, or the sheer, raw emotion that we experienced and saw on the streets of Shrewsbury.
People’s properties were devastated, and one has to remember that an Englishman’s home is his castle. People’s personal possessions and homes were badly affected. I know one lady in my constituency whose home is flooded every single year. It was a very emotional time for both the Environment Secretary and me, but it was an important visit, because I introduced him to Professor Mark Barrow from Shropshire Council. He helps to run the River Severn Partnership, which is a consortium of the councils all the way down the river. We have had enough of acting in silos; we understand the key aspect from an emotional intelligence perspective—the interdependence of all the communities along the River Severn. My council, Shropshire Council, has reached out to other councils all the way down the river to create the River Severn Partnership, so that as a consortium they can speak with one voice in lobbying the Government.
I am pleased to inform the Minister that in 2019, after that visit to my constituency, we received £50 million of taxpayers’ money, not only to help us with some small flood defence schemes in the constituency, but, most importantly, to start the work of creating a plan to manage the River Severn holistically.

Mark Garnier: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the extraordinary amount of work he has done over the past few years in achieving a momentous investment, potentially, in the whole of the River Severn valley. He has also been successful in securing £50 million for his constituency. The last Prime Minister but one was also incredibly generous to Wyre Forest, in committing £10 million to the Bewdley flood defences, which are going up at the moment. Some action is being taken, as well as the excellent work my hon. Friend is doing.

Daniel Kawczynski: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I put on record how much my team and I appreciate his consistent support in working with me on the caucus that I manage here in the House of Commons.

Harriett Baldwin: I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important Adjournment debate. My constituency contains the River Severn catchment, the River Teme and the River Avon, so it is also prone to flooding. Does he agree that it is wonderful that the Environment Agency has delivered schemes in Upton upon Severn, Pershore, Uckinghall, Kempsey and Powick? Does he also agree that it would be good if the Environment Agency would complete the schemes it is working on in Tenbury Wells and in Severn Stoke?

Daniel Kawczynski: I am happy to echo those sentiments, with the Minister listening and making notes. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the constructive way in which she has worked with me and others on the River Severn caucus. I wish her every success with getting those flood defences completed.
Although the flood defences that my hon. Friend refers to are essential—they are critical in the short-term to medium-term—there is also a long-term objective of managing the River Severn holistically. Hitherto, we have had the idea of building small flood barriers. They are important, but inevitably they push the problem further downstream; that is counter-intuitive to a certain degree, because we are protecting ourselves and making it more difficult for the community further downstream. Later in my speech, I will explain how, now that we have left the common agricultural policy, we want to start to manage this river holistically.
I pay tribute to Mark Barrow of the River Severn Partnership and to the Environment Agency, whose new chief executive, Mr Duffy, I met recently. As a result of our work, we have presented a business case to the Minister for flooding, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow). I am grateful to her, because she has visited my constituency twice in the past year. At my invitation, she has come to Shrewsbury, sat with the officials of the River Severn Partnership and been presented with the business case that we are now sharing with the Government on how we intend to manage the River Severn. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all her work, as well as her determination and ability to visit my constituency to hear our proposals at first hand. Following those discussions, the then DEFRA Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), visited Shrewsbury earlier this year at my invitation. She was presented with the business case that has now gone to Government and she was impressed with what she saw.
Finally, as I mentioned, I invited the chief executive of the Environment Agency, Mr Duffy, to visit Shrewsbury two months ago, which he did, and he was presented with the proposals as well. Those proposals have been developed through a collaboration between the caucus of 38 Conservative MPs whose constituencies the river flows through. As I said to the Chancellor, “You have heard of the blue Danube—well, this is the blue Severn”, because 38 of us Tory MPs have the river flowing through our constituencies. I presented the proposals to Mr Duffy and he understood the importance of the plans.
We presented the plans to the Chancellor at a meeting of the River Severn caucus last month, and I know some of his senior special advisers and assistants are currently examining the business model in order to   understand its economic impact on the midlands. We hope and expect the Chancellor to have positive things to say to us in the spring Budget.
I also raised the matter at Prime Minister’s questions today. The Prime Minister kindly recognised the many dealings I had with him when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He promised that the new Chancellor will look at the proposals and stated that the Government have already given an extra £6 billion for flood defences. I recognise that and thank the Government for allocating an extra £6 billion of taxpayers’ money to flood defences. However, the situation is grave across the whole of the United Kingdom and I have heard that a lot of that money has been spent in London. Protecting our capital city is obviously a priority, but I would argue that £6 billion is a drop in the ocean, if you would pardon the pun, Mr Deputy Speaker, compared to what is required.
We are not prepared to go to DEFRA to ask for a piece of that £6 billion. We want to go directly to the Chancellor, give him a business case and a business plan, and explain that if £500 million is invested today, there will be an economic uplift in the west midlands, which is the industrial heartland of England, of over £100 million gross value added. That is what is in the business case that has gone to the Chancellor.
I am proud to have campaigned for Brexit, but I am even prouder that my constituents in Shrewsbury voted for Brexit. One clear benefit of leaving the European Union is that we no longer have to comply with the ghastly common agricultural policy, which was difficult for us to benefit from and almost designed to be unconducive to English farming practices. Now that we are no longer part of the common agricultural policy, we can, for the first time, pay and incentivise farmers and landowners to hold on to water. That was not allowed under the common agricultural policy. Now that we have left, for the first time we can go to farmers and say, “If you want to be part of a major solution to flooding, we can incentivise you financially to hold on to that water and manage that water during extreme times of flooding.” We can also pay landowners for helping to be part of that solution.
I have had two very productive discussions with two Secretaries of State for Wales. I think you were once a shadow Secretary of State for Wales, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you were brilliant. You will know, from having held that position, the extraordinary interdependence that we have in western England with our neighbours in Wales. We are all part of the same Union, and, of course, this solution to managing Britain’s longest river can be achieved only if we have collaboration and co-operation from our partners across the border. Having represented a constituency on the English-Welsh border, I am acutely aware of the need to have schemes that enhance and promote the interdependence of both of our countries, as we share this one island together.
I am very grateful for the close support from my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams), who is the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary. We collaborate on many things, but he has already stated to his local press that he supports these plans. A counter-intuitive person would say, “No, I am not interested. That’s your problem. You deal with it” but he has said that he understands how some of his landowners and farmers  could benefit enormously from financial payments if they were part of the solution. He understands the potential of the vast economic investment in his constituency, particularly at a difficult time for farmers and agriculture.
Shropshire Council has taken the lead with the River Severn Partnership. I chair a caucus of 38 Conservative MPs who have this river flowing through their constituencies. We are approaching—I say this unequivocally—a general election. Every year, Mr Blair and John Prescott came to Shrewsbury. In 1999, they ostensibly walked around Shrewsbury, saying, “Don’t worry, folks, we are going to protect you.” Well, we had a flood barrier, which protects a car park and 38 houses and that was the extent of the help that we got from Mr Blair and Mr Prescott. We cannot have just little sticking plasters on this problem, bearing in mind that this situation will only get worse—I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you and I can agree on that. Given climate change and the number of months and days of floods that we are experiencing, this situation will get increasingly worse for our children and our grandchildren. If we can invest today in an innovative, progressive and modern way of holistically managing rivers, that will be not just a prototype for other parts of the United Kingdom, but, potentially, a massive British export worldwide. Think about the suffering and the misery in Bangladesh. Think about all the millions of people around the world who face economic hardship and sometimes death as a result of these rivers spilling over. If we can invest in this technology of managing rivers, it could be of huge benefit not only to our exports, but to our international development aid programme.
Finally, with £500 million—that is what is in the business case—we can show an uplift of more than £100 billion for the west midlands economy. I am not begging for £500 million; I am saying to the Chancellor, “This is the return on investment that you will get if you invest in this scheme.” I know how difficult the public finances are at the moment, which is why I am so proud of the way in which we have presented the plans.
I am grateful for the constructive dialogue that I have had with the Minister. I welcome him to his position, and I know that he will do a superb job. We need his support. I have sent his officials copies of the business case that has been presented to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am asking for the Minister’s understanding of our proposals, and for him to lobby the Chancellor with me ahead of the spring Budget. I am sure he will agree that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will need more than £6 billion in the years to come to manage flooding.
Finally, let me tell the House about my constituent Mr Bob Ashton of Cambrian House, an apartment building that floods almost annually. He has taken me to see it, and the residents themselves have built flood defences to protect the entire building; a sort of electronic shield goes up to protect it. That is a very innovative way of trying to protect a whole apartment building, and I pay tribute to Mr Ashton and his fellow residents for their innovation. They live in Coton Hill in Shrewsbury. I must declare an interest, because I too live in Coton Hill, an area of my constituency that floods annually.
I go to see businesses in Shrewsbury not just when they are flooding, but 30 businesses tell me their takings during the floods and in the weeks after them, and they  are significantly down even two weeks after the flooding has subsided. As we know, the media are brilliant at highlighting when Shrewsbury is under water, but they are not so interested in broadcasting that the floods have subsided and we are back to normal.
Flooding is the single biggest barrier to Shrewsbury’s economic development. We have more listed buildings—Edwardian, Elizabethan and Georgian—than any other town in England. We are so proud of our architectural beauty. Charles Darwin was born in Shrewsbury. We are a very historic town and we are very proud of our town, but, as I say, the flooding is causing horrendous problems for my citizens, adversely affecting people’s ability to get insurance for their properties and putting tourists off coming to our town when they see the consequences of it.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak on a subject that I feel so passionately about. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Robbie Moore: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing this important debate to build his case for dealing with the challenges that not only he and his constituents but those across the whole River Severn catchment area are experiencing with flooding. Not only was my hon. Friend successful in securing an Adjournment debate, but he did so for a day on which we could continue to speak about the subject for another couple of hours if we wished. That enables me not only to set out the position that the Government are taking nationally, but to pick up on some of the specific concerns that he has rightly voiced to me, as the Minister with responsibility for flooding, on behalf of his constituents.
Of course, the Government and I sympathise with my hon. Friend’s constituents, and all households and businesses that experience regular floods. I was taken by the point my hon. Friend made at the beginning of his speech, when he talked eloquently about having hosted the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who visited his constituency back in 2019 to meet some of his constituents who had unfortunately been flooded, get to grips with the emotional challenges of flooding for them, and its impact not only on their property, but on their livelihoods, their families and some of their businesses.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend was able to introduce the then Secretary of State to Professor Mark Barrow, who heads up the River Severn Partnership, to make sure that the Department is alive to my hon. Friend’s ambitions for his constituency and further afield. The number of times he has raised this issue in the House is extraordinary, and he did so again earlier today at Prime Minister’s questions; I was in the Chamber to listen to not only his question, but the Prime Minister’s reply from this very Dispatch Box.
As climate change leads to rising sea levels and more extreme rainfall, the number of people at risk from flooding and coastal erosion continues to grow. That is  why this Government are acting now to drive down flood risk from every angle. Given that we have some time, I want to set out what the Government are doing at a national level, and then I will come back to some of the specifics that my hon. Friend raised.
Our long-term policy statement, published in 2020, sets out our ambition to create a nation more resilient to future flood and coastal erosion risk. It includes five ambitious policies and a number of actions that will accelerate progress to 2027 and beyond, to prepare the country and better protect it against flooding and coastal erosion in the face of more frequent extreme weather. We are now halfway through our significant £5.2 billion flood and coastal erosion six-year investment programme. In that time we have invested more than £1.5 billion to better protect more than 67,000 homes and businesses in England alone, taking the total number of properties protected to more than 380,000 since 2015 and more than 600,000 since 2010.
That record £5.2 billion investment is double the £2.6 billion investment from the previous funding round, which ran from 2015 to 2021. That programme delivered more than 850 flood defence projects to better protect 314,000 homes, nearly 600,000 acres of farmland, thousands of businesses and major pieces of infrastructure. That demonstrates how dedicated this Government are to dealing with not only the challenges that my hon. Friend has raised in the River Severn catchment, but other challenges across England.
With double the investment, we will continue to build on past achievements and improve flood resilience for all. However, it would be insincere of me not to point out the findings of the recent National Audit Office report on resilience to flooding, which highlighted that our current investment programme has faced challenges. It is absolutely right that, like previous Ministers, I ensure that we are delivering for constituents right across England who need protection for their homes and for the businesses that are impacted, and that we audit the money being spent so that we can get better protection for all.
Unfortunately, the start of the programme was impacted by the coronavirus pandemic, which resulted in fewer people being available to develop projects and delayed the mobilisation. However, I am pleased to be able to reassure all hon. Members that we are well on course to delivering the funding that we have allocated during this funding round and that, despite the challenges, 67,000 properties have already been better protected from flooding under the programme, which started in April 2021. The delays do, however, mean that the original target of better protecting 336,000 properties by 2027 is under review, and I am asking my officials to give me further advice on that. The Environment Agency’s revised forecast is that 200,000 properties will be better protected in that time. I am currently in discussions with the Environment Agency on how we can make sure that the budget is spent properly.
We are ensuring that projects are delivered in every region, and we are providing flooding protection across the country. In April 2023, we announced the first communities in England to benefit from the £100 million frequently flooded allowance. The first 53 projects will be allocated more than £26 million in total in 2023 and 2024, safeguarding 2,300 households and businesses alone. In September 2023, we announced a further  round of £25 million through the natural flood management programme; successful projects will be announced early in 2024.
As part of that wider approach, we have also funded a £200 million flood and coastal innovation programme, which has three elements: £33 million to develop a coastal transition accelerator programme in a small number of areas that are exposed to significant risks of coastal erosion; around £150 million to support 25 innovative projects over six years to improve their resilience to flooding and coastal erosion; and £8 million for four adaptation pathways in the Thames and Humber estuaries, the Severn valley and Yorkshire, enabling local places to better plan for future flooding and coastal change and to adapt to future climate hazards. In addition, we continue to invest in flood and coastal defence maintenance with an extra £22 million per year for the current spending review period to 2024-25. Currently, 93.5% of major flood and coastal erosion risk management assets are in target condition, but that is not where we need to be; we aim to achieve 98% relatively soon.
In addition to all that new funding, we are working closely with partner agencies to tackle surface water flooding. Unfortunately, 3.4 million properties in England are at risk of surface water flooding, and the Environment Agency and the Met Office are investing an additional £1 million over the next three years, through the Flood Forecasting Centre, to advance the modelling, forecasting and communication of surface water flood risk. In addition, the Government are focusing on water companies, where we will be investing over £1 billion between 2020 and 2025 to reduce the impact of flooding on communities across England and Wales.
Let me address the specific points that were raised in the debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, because he is representing not just himself but 38 other colleagues as part of a wider caucus. I know the hard work that he has done with that caucus, and not just in the House. Not only has he already lobbied me in my first three weeks in this role, but I know that he lobbied the last flooding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), on several occasions, including on visits, and he raised his case at Prime Minister’s questions today. I know that his business case has been submitted to the Chancellor, and it has already reached my desk. I await the opportunity to digest it—it arrived only today—so that I can speak in more detail not only with my officials, but with those at the Treasury.
Let me pick up on the points made by my hon. Friend Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) about the Environment Agency scheme at Tenbury Wells and the Severn Stoke alleviation scheme. I want to reassure her that the outline business case for the Tenbury Wells scheme has been approved by the Environment Agency, which is reviewing design options for it. It has been advised that the scheme is complex, but nevertheless, we will ensure that it progresses. While there have been some complexities associated with the Severn Trent flood alleviation scheme, I reassure my hon. Friend that the Environment Agency is working to secure a contractor, so that the agency and I can be reassured that that scheme will be able to commence construction from spring 2024.
As has been pointed out, we have already invested £50 million in the English Severn and Wye catchment between 2015 and 2021, protecting 3,000 homes. That programme has invested almost £8 million within Shropshire alone, better protecting over 200 homes, and under the new funding round that covers the period between 2021 and 2027, we expect to invest another £150 million to reduce flood risk and better protect a further 3,000 homes and businesses across that catchment. Almost £45 million of that funding will be invested specifically in Shropshire, better protecting almost 600 homes and businesses. That is in addition to the summer economic recovery fund, which has already allocated £40 million of investment to the River Severn catchment. Projects in Shropshire that will benefit include the highly innovative Severn valley water management scheme, which is already shaping landscape change in the upper catchment across England and Wales.
I want to pick up specifically on a point rightly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham. We are now out of the European Union, and will be coming out of the common agricultural policy. That creates opportunities for not only DEFRA but the Treasury to look at how we can incentivise more upstream schemes, so that we increase the lag time of the water getting into the River Severn. I am very keen to explore those options as part of my flooding portfolio and alongside my DEFRA colleagues, making sure that those schemes work not only within urban environments, but upstream in more natural environments.
The Severn valley water management scheme aims to reduce flood risk across Shropshire, but will also secure water resources for the future, benefiting and improving water quality, natural assets and the environment. The Environment Agency is working closely with local authorities, landowners and communities to identify places where it is feasible and effective to deliver such innovations. It is likely that not all funding will need to come from Government—that is important, because we need to secure value for money, not only for the taxpayer but from public funds and private initiatives. I am happy to look at the options that are available; no doubt, those options might be included in the business case that has already been submitted to the Chancellor, but that is something that I, with my officials, will concentrate on as well.
As I mentioned, the Severn valley will also benefit from £1.5 million in funding as one of the adaptation pathway projects. The River Severn adaptation pathway project will help ensure that people and wildlife within that vibrant river catchment can adapt and be resilient in the face of the changing climate we are all experiencing. That suite of pathways and actions is being developed, and will help manage flood risk and ensure that water resources can be used much more effectively across the River Severn catchment, not only today or tomorrow but well into the future. The county of Shropshire is also benefiting from approximately £3.5 million of maintenance of current flood risk assets to ensure that we can continue to be effective in better protecting communities from flooding, not only those in my hon. Friend’s constituency but others across the River Severn catchment.
In total, since 2015, approximately £245 million has been committed to reduce flooding in the River Severn valley area, demonstrating this Government’s commitment  to areas impacted by regular flooding. As I have said, I will pay deep attention to the business case that has been presented to my colleagues in the Treasury, and on the back of this Adjournment debate, I will be more than happy to have a meeting with my hon. Friend and members of his caucus, which he is doing an excellent job of leading.

Daniel Kawczynski: I am very grateful for the very positive way in which my hon. Friend is responding to the points I have made. Will he also commit to visiting Shrewsbury in the new year to meet the River Severn Partnership and to see, in practice, some of the proposals that we wish to create?

Nigel Evans: Before the Minister responds, may I urge him to face forward? I know the temptation is to look at Mr Kawczynski,  but when he is facing forward he is speaking into the microphone, and it can be picked up by Hansard.

Robbie Moore: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I was coming on to that point. I am happy not only to pay my hon. Friend a visit, but to meet his colleagues who have been working on the business case in his constituency to make sure that we are able to take fully into account the proposals being put forward to my Department. I am always happy to get out and practically speak to people on the ground who are being negatively impacted by flooding. I hope that a visit, which I am more than happy to do, will be of value not only to him, but to me in my role.
I want to reiterate that I fully understand the anxiety and frustration felt by my hon. Friend’s constituents, which is why I am absolutely committed to providing full attention to and focus on flooding and flood resilience. Storm Babet provided significant challenges to many local authorities across England, and I hope that some of the reassurance I have provided him, through the amount of money that this Government are spending across England, gives him some sense of reassurance about how importantly flood resilience and flood improvement projects are taken by this Government.
I also want to outline quickly some other work that falls into other Departments. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has activated the flood recovery framework and its package of support includes these measures. There is the community recovery grant, from which eligible local authorities will receive funding equivalent to £500 per flooded household to support local recovery efforts. I know this has been rolled out on the back of Storm Babet and others. In addition, there is the business recovery grant, from which the Department for Business and Trade will provide eligible local authorities with up to £2,500 for each eligible small and medium-sized enterprise that has suffered severe impacts from flooding that cannot be recovered from insurance. There is the council tax discount, under which the Government  will reimburse eligible local authorities for the cost of  a 100% council tax discount for a minimum of three months. Finally, there is the property flood resilience repair grant, and areas flooded by Storm Babet have been able to benefit positively from that grant. The scheme offers a package of funding for property owners directly flooded by a specific weather event, and grants them up to £5,000 per property to install flood resilience measures. In addition, these grants will be supported by the existing Bellwin scheme, which can provide financial help to local authorities for the immediate actions that they take in the aftermath of an emergency, such as setting up rest centres and temporary accommodation.
To conclude, I want to reassure my hon. Friend that his debate has been absolutely welcomed by me as the Minister. He used the opportunity before this debate to speak to me very specifically on the level of detail with which his business case is being put forward, and I am more than happy to meet him and to pay a visit to his constituency so that I can understand the business case in more detail. Let me be clear: we will continue to improve the resilience to flooding of our villages, towns and cities across England and the wider UK, and we will do that in a holistic manner.

Nigel Evans: I thought we were going to have a two-hour speech. I was looking forward to that.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Deferred Divisions

Representation of People (Northern Ireland)

That the draft Representation of the People (Overseas Electors etc.) (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 23 October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 325, Noes 154.
Question accordingly agreed to.

Retained EU Law Reform

That the draft Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 7 November, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 464, Noes 11.
Question accordingly agreed to.

Police

That the draft Representation of the People (Overseas Electors etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 23 October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 186.
Question accordingly agreed to.